Anda di halaman 1dari 42

the intention to attach them permanently to

I. Classification of Property the tenements (destination);


A. Immovable and Movable (5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or
implements intended by the owner of the
1.
tenement for an industry or works which
Article 414. All things which are or may may be carried on in a building or on a
be the object of appropriation are piece of land, and which tend directly to
considered either: meet the needs of the said industry or
works (destination);
(1) Immovable or real property; or
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives,
(2) Movable or personal property. fish ponds or breeding places of similar
nature, in case their owner has placed them
Parties to a contract may by agreement or preserves them with the intention to
treat as personal property that which by have them permanently attached to the
nature would be real property. land, and forming a permanent part of it;
Standard Oil Company v. Jaramillo the animals in these places are included
(destination);
Building was mortgaged to SOC. SOC sought
to compel Jaramillo, register of deeds, to (7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
register a CHATTEL mortgage issued in SOC’s (8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
favor. The objects of the document were the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and
leasehold rights over a certain property and waters either running or stagnant;
the house constructed over the same
property. (9) Docks and structures which, thought
floating, are intended by their nature and
Jaramillo refused to register the document object to remain at a fixed place on a river,
because the objects did not appear to be lake, or coast;
personal property under the Chattel Mortgage
Law. SOC filed for mandamus. (10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes
and other real rights over immovable
HELD: The document should be registered. It property.
is undeniable that the parties to a contract
may by agreement treat as personal property Does not define, only enumerates.
that which by nature would be real property.
Academic Classification of Immovables (NIDA)
The register’s duty is MINISTERIAL, he can
not determine the nature of the document 1. Nature (trees and plants, land)
sought to be registered.
2. Incorporation (buildings)
2. 3. Destination or purpose (machinery
placed by owner on tenement for direct
Article 415. The following are immovable use of industry or works to be carried
property: on therein)
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of 4. Analogy (like the right of usufruct,
all kinds adhered to the soil; public works, servitudes)
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while ---
they are attached to the land or form an
integral part of an immovable; If a building is not adhered to the soil and there
is no intent of permanency, it is personal
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a property.
fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot
be separated therefrom without breaking ---
the material or deterioration of the object (4) 1. movable property must be placed in an
(incorporation); immovable property
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings, or other objects 2. by the owner of the immovable
for use or ornamentation, placed in
buildings or on lands by the owner of the 3. the intention must be to attach it
immovable in such a manner that it reveals permanently (destination)

cmt Page 1 of 42 3/7/2004


--- bad faith. The sale of the building cannot bind
third persons in good faith because it was the
Provision in lease that improvements made
sale of real property registered not in the
shall belong to the lessor upon termination of
Registry of Real Property but the CM Registry.
the lease – air-conditioner installed by lessee.
Will AC be turned over to the lessor? Yes.
Lessee acted as an agent of the lessor.
---
A building may be validly mortgaged
(5) Requisites separately from the land upon which it is
A. Placed by the owner; built.

B. Intended for an industry or works Prudential Bank v. Judge Panis


carried on in building or land; Owners of a building on leased land obtained
C. Machines must tend to directly meet 2 loan from the bank, the loans secured by
the needs of the industry; REMs over the building. The owners defaulted,
prompting the foreclosure of the mortgage.
D. Machines must be essential and
principal elements in the industry; not The respondent court ruled that the REMs
mere incidentals. were void, holding that a building may not be
mortgaged separately from the land on which
Ex. Sewing machines placed in own house it is built.
intended to be used as a garments factory.
Immovable? Yes. Machines placed by owner; HELD: The 1st REM, executed before title of
for industry…; tend directly to meet…; land was transferred to the mortgagor, is
essential… valid. Article 415 mentions ‘buildings’
separate from land; this means that the
If other person’s house, immovable building by itself is an immovable and may be
Effect of separation: If temporarily taken away, the subject of a REM.
still immovable. The 2nd REM, executed after title was
--- transferred, is void for being violative of the
Public Land Act.
Sale of real property in the CM Registry
cannot bind third persons in good faith.
Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery To be considered as real property by
destination, the machinery etc. must be
Agricola purchased rice-cleaning machinery (1) essential and principal elements of
from Strong and executed a chattel mortgage the industry and (2) the industry must be
over the machinery and the building in which carried out in a building or piece of land
it was installed. Agricola defaulted and Strong
purchased the building at auction. The Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor
mortgage and sale were registered in the CM The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax
registry. on certain MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
Agricola later sold the land to Strong, the sale EQUIPMENT of MBC.
being in an unregistered public document. MBC opposed, contending that the items were
It turns out that the building was also REM to not real property; the items in question are
Leung Yee to secure payment of a movable.
construction contract. When Agricola HELD: The items are personal property. They
defaulted, Leung Yee purchased the building are not immobilized by destination or purpose
at a sheriff’s sale (this sale took place after as contended by the City Assessor. To be
the building was bought by Strong). considered as real property by destination,
Leung Yee brought suit to recover possession they must be (1) essential and principal
of the building. elements of the industry and (2) the industry
must be carried out in a building or piece of
HELD: Strong has a better right over the land.
building. This is true only because Leung Yee
knew of the chattel mortgage to Strong when In this case, the items are only incidentals to
he purchased the building; he was a buyer in the transport business and the business is

cmt Page 2 of 42 3/7/2004


carried on not in a building or piece of land (4) In general, all things which can be
but around the streets of Mindanao. transported from place to place without
impairment of the real property to which
they are fixed.
A stipulation in the lease agreement to
treat the real property as personal is
binding upon the parties. The parties are For purposes of the Chattel Mortgage
estopped from claiming otherwise. Law, ungathered products have the
nature of personal property and may be
Serg’s Products v. PCI Leasing attached and executed upon.
PCI filed a complaint for a sum of money and Sibal v. Valdez
an application for a writ of replevin on the
chocolate manufacturing equipment of Serg’s. Sibal’s sugarcane crops were attached and
Serg’s claims property is real and not subject sold to Valdez in order to satisfy a judgment
to a writ of seizure. debt. The lot on which the crops were located
had been previously attached and sold to
HELD: The property is real under Article 415 another creditor, Macondray. Valdez later
BUT it was stipulated in the lease agreement purchased the land from Macondray.
that they would be treated as personal. Serg’s
is ESTOPPED from claiming that they are real Sibal sought to redeem the sugarcane from
in character. Valdez on the assumption that it was real
property (growing fruits attached to the land).
Plaintiff contends that the sugarcane is
Steel electric towers are personal personal property and not subject to
property provided they can be removed redemption.
without substantial breakage or
deterioration. HELD: Although the sugarcane may be
considered as growing fruits and is ordinarily
Board of Assessment Appeals v. Meralco real property, for the purposes of the Chattel
The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax Mortgage Law, the crops must be regarded as
on steel towers of MERALCO. The taxes were personal property. This is because the right to
paid under protest, MERALCO contending that the growing crops given to the defendant
the towers were exempt from taxation and mobilized the crops by anticipation. It is as if
that they were personal and not real property. there was a gathering in advance rendering
the crop movable.
HELD: The towers are personal property.
They are not buildings adhered to the soil
(415-1); they are not attached to an Electricity may be appropriated; it can be
immovable in a fixed manner and they can be the object of theft.
separated without substantial damage or
deterioration (3) and they are not US v. Carlos
machineries intended for works on the land
Accused was convicted for the theft of electric
(5).
current by means of a jumper. Accused
contends that electricity is intangible and
cannot be the object of theft.
3. HELD: Accused is guilty of theft.
Article 416. The following things are The Revised Penal Code provides that
deemed to be personal property: personal property is the subject of theft.
(1) Those movables susceptible of Electricity is a valuable article of merchandise
appropriation which are not included in the and can be bought and sold like any other
preceding article; personal property.
(2) Real property which by any special The true test of what is a proper subject of
provision of law is considered as personalty; larceny is not whether the subject is corporeal
or incorporeal, but whether it is capable of
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under appropriation by another than the owner.
control by science; and

cmt Page 3 of 42 3/7/2004


Article 417. The following are also 4.
considered as personal property:
Article 419. Property is either of public
(1) Obligations and actions which have for dominion or of private ownership.
their object movables or demandable sums;
and Article 420. The following things are
property of public dominion:
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial,
and industrial entities, although they may (1) Those intended for public use, such as
have real estate. roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
bridges constructed by the State, banks,
(1) Examples are: the right to recover shores, roadsteads, and others of similar
stolen property and promissory notes character;
as these involve movables or
demandable sums (2) Those which belong to the State, without
being for public use, and are intended for
(2) Even if the sole property of the some public service or for the development
corporation is real property, a share in of the national wealth.
such corporation is personal property.
In fact, all shares in all juridical persons Public dominion (def.):
are considered personal. a) ownership by the State in that the State
The property right of shares of stock has control and administration; or
can only be enforced or exercised where b) ownership by the public in general.
the corporation is organized or has its
place of business. Three Kinds Of Property Of Public
Dominion:
(3) Money is always personal property.
Money is not merchandise when in 1) For public use – roads, canals for use
domestic circulation; it becomes by everyone
merchandise when it is exported or
2) For public service – government
taken out of domestic circulation.
buildings and vehicles for use by
Article 418. Movable property is either authorized persons
consumable or non-consumable. 3) For the development of national
To the first class belong those movables which wealth – natural resources.
cannot be used in a manner appropriate to
their nature without their being consumed;
to the second class belong all others. Canals constructed by private persons
within private lands are of private
Classifications of movable property ownership.
(1) According to NATURE: Santos v. Moreno
a. Consumable – cannot be used The Ayala’s originally constructed the canals
according to its nature without to facilitate the operations of their nipa
being consumed plantation.
b. Non-consumable – any other The Ayala’s later transformed their nipa
kind of movable property plantation into several fishponds by
(2) According to INTENTION: constructing dams or dikes to block the flow
of water in canals located in the plantation.
a. Fungible – Mutuum - borrowed This property was later sold to Santos, who
for consumption and equivalent further developed the property for
property will be returned aquaculture.
b. Non-fungible – Commodatum - Local residents sought the destruction of the
exact same property will be dikes stating that their construction prevented
returned. them from using the canals for transportation,
caused flooding, and deprived them of fishing
B. Property in Relation to the Person to grounds.
whom it Belongs

cmt Page 4 of 42 3/7/2004


ISSUE: whether the canals are of public corresponding contract of procurement which
dominion or private ownership. bind both the Philippine government and the
Japanese government. Being so, it cannot be
HELD: The canals are private; their
alienated.
destruction may not be ordered.
Contrary to respondents’ claim, conversion of
Article 420 states that canals constructed by
a property’s character from public to
the State are of public ownership; conversely,
patrimonial requires a formal declaration of
canals constructed by private persons within
abandonment of the public character.
private lands are of private ownership.
*Even if the property were patrimonial, there
could be no sale as there is no law authorizing
Art. 421. All other property of the State, the same.
which is not of the character stated in the
preceding article, is patrimonial property.
(340a) Public plazas and streets are of public
character and may not be leased out by
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when the municipality.
no longer intended for public use or for
public service, shall form part of the Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas
patrimonial property of the State. (341a) The municipal council of Cavite withdrew from
public use and leased to Rojas a portion of the
town plaza. The provincial fiscal later filed a
Conversion of a property’s character complaint alleging that the property leased
from public to patrimonial requires a was of public character and therefore the
formal declaration of abandonment of contract was null and void.
the public character.
HELD: The contract of lease is ultra vires and
Laurel v. Garcia null and void, the municipality never having
had authority to exclude it from public use
The government sought to sell a property and lease it out.
located in Japan which it acquired through a
reparation agreement with the Japanese Property belonging to the public domain is
government. The property in question was outside the commerce of man and cannot be
given with the intention of its being the site of the object of any contract.
the Philippine Embassy; it was given with the
The defendant must return the land and the
understanding that it would be used for the
municipality must reimburse rentals paid.
government sector.
*The book says that Rojas received no benefit
ISSUE: Whether the property is public or
but the facts show that occupation was
patrimonial.
enjoyed and a house was built. Compare to
Respondents claim that the property is Sanchez v. Asingan.
governed not by the Civil Code but by
Japanese law and assuming that the CC were
applicable, the government has implicitly Property owned by the State which is not
abandoned the public use of the property and intended for public use or public service
caused it to become patrimonial by is patrimonial.
transferring the embassy to another location
and other executive acts. There is no reimbursement if lessee
derived substantial benefit from the use
HELD: The property is public – its ownership of said property.
is collective and resides in the sovereign
people. It is outside the commerce of man. Sanchez v. Mun. of Asingan

The property is of public dominion and Petitioner occupied a parcel of land owned by
intended for public service under Article 420 the municipality, with the implied consent of
of the Civil Code. the latter, and built buildings of light
materials – rent was paid.
This is dictated by the terms of the
Reparations Agreement and the When a new set of officials took over, the
council gave notice to petitioner to vacate the
land within 5 months.

cmt Page 5 of 42 3/7/2004


Petitioner refused and filed for prohibition Examples of property for public use
stating that the land belonged to the province being streets, promenades, fountains,
and the municipality had no standing to seek etc.
their ejectment and in case they should be
City of Cebu v. NAWASA
ejected, prayed for reimbursement, citing the
Rojas case. The City of Cebu obtained a loan which was to
be paid with its own funds. Part of the
ISSUE: Whether the land is public or
proceeds of this loan was used to fund the
patrimonial.
construction of the City’s sewage system.
HELD: The land is patrimonial property of the
NAWASA sought to expropriate the sewage
municipality. It was not for public use not was
system. This was opposed with the arguments
it for public service.
that there was no payment of just
There is to be no reimbursement. Unlike the compensation; NAWASA offered unliquidated
Rojas case, the land here is not of public assets and liabilities.
character. The implied lease agreement is
NAWASA averred, as an alternative course of
therefore valid and may be terminated upon
action, that the property is one for public use
notice.
and under the control of the legislature.
Assuming that the property is public, there
ISSUE: Whether the property is patrimonial
can still be no reimbursement as petitioner
property of the city or property for public use.
derived substantial benefit from the use of
said property. HELD: The property is patrimonial and not
subject to legislative control. It is property
of the city, purchased with private funds and
INSERT REPUBLIC V. CA HERE not devoted to public use (it is for profit). It is
therefore patrimonial under the Civil Code.
5. Nor can the system be considered “public
works for public service” under Article 424
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, because such classification is qualified by
and municipalities is divided into property ejusdem generis; it must be of the same
for public use and patrimonial property. character as the preceding items.
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist
of the provincial roads, city streets, What if a courthouse is constructed with
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, municipal funds?
public waters, promenades, and public clarify
works for public service paid for by said
provinces, cities, or municipalities. City constructs public market patrimonial

All other property possessed by any of them is Cemetery public use


patrimonial and shall be governed by this
Code, without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws. Under the Law of Municipal Corporations,
it is enough that the property be devoted
Where now do properties for public service for governmental purposes for it to be
and properties for the development of classified as public.
national wealth fall?
Province of Zamboanga v. City of
Public service – depends on who pays for the Zamboanga
service. If paid for by the political subdivision,
public; if for profit, patrimonial. Zamboanga City ceased to become the
provincial capital and a law was passed
National wealth – still property for public use declaring the province’s property located
under the regalian doctrine. within the city to be transferred to the city
free of charge. The properties were the capital
site, hospitals, playgrounds, and schools.
Property of a political subdivision is
public only if it is devoted to public use.

cmt Page 6 of 42 3/7/2004


ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the Public properties are exempt from
properties to the City without compensating execution because of their necessity for
the province. governmental functions.
HELD: Yes; the properties are public and Viuda de Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of
subject to the absolute control of Congress. Iloilo
If the province owns the properties in it public Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco
and governmental capacity, the property is compensation for properties taken from her
public and Congress has absolute control over and used for street-widening. Because Iloilo
it. had no money, Tan Toco caused a writ of
execution to be issued against municipal
The character of the property depends on
property: street sprinkling trucks, police cars,
the use to which it is devoted. The
police stations, and markets.
problem is which applies, Civil Code or
Law of Municipal Corporations? Iloilo’s defense is that the properties are
public and exempt from execution.
Under the CC, a property is public if it is for
the free and indiscriminate use of everyone. HELD: The properties are public and exempt
Under municipal law, it is sufficient that the from execution.
property be devoted to governmental
The vehicles and the police station all serve
purposes.
governmental functions. The market, though
In this case, applying the CC, the properties not purely public is also exempt because it
are not for public use but merely for public would allow a third party to the franchise
service. agreement to assume control without the
approval of the administration.
However, Municipal law applies because the
controversy is more municipal than civil and
the properties are needed for the
performance of governmental functions. The A town plaza loses its public character
LMC provides that a property is public if it is when the town ceases using it as such
devoted to public use. and subjects it to patrimonial use.

If the CC classification is used, consequences Municipality of Oas v. Roa


are dire (acquisition through adverse The Municipality of Oas sought to recover land
possession). from Roa claiming it was part of the town’s
Also the LMC is a special law. The CC itself public square. Roa claims he is the owner of
provides that its provisions apply without the property. He had erected a substantial
prejudice to special laws. building on the property without opposition
from the municipality.
The buildings on the lots are also public
because accessory follows the principal. HELD: The land belongs to the municipality
as shown by several town resolutions signed
by Roa himself. It is patrimonial because the
town had long since ceased using it as a plaza
How do we resolve what determines character?
and had started using it as storage space.
Salas v. Jarencio: How the property was
Although the property is now patrimonial and
purchased public/private funds
susceptible of ownership, Roa has failed to
Or show any of the modes of acquiring
ownership.
Civil code: What use the property is devoted to
free and indiscriminate use of everyone or Since both parties are in bad faith (Roa’s
otherwise construction despite knowledge; tolerance by
the municipality), they shall be treated as
Or
though they are both in good faith.
LMC: Property is public if it is exclusively
The town may sell the land to Roa or Roa may
devoted to public service.
sell the improvements to Roa.
--

cmt Page 7 of 42 3/7/2004


Art. 425. Property of private ownership, i. Naked ownership plus
besides the patrimonial property of the usufruct equals full
State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, ownership.
consists of all property belonging to private ii. Usufruct equals full
persons, either individually or collectively. ownership minus naked
(345a) ownership.
Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, iii. Naked ownership equals
or an individual declaration, the expression full ownership minus
"immovable things or property," or usufruct.
"movable things or property," is used, it
shall be deemed to include, respectively, (c) Sole ownership – where the
the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and ownership is vested in only one
Chapter 2. person.

Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in


is used alone, it shall not be deemed to Common) – when the
include money, credits, commercial ownership is vested in two or
securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, more owners.
scientific or artistic collections, books, Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy
medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and dispose of a thing, without other
and their accessories, grains, liquids and limitations than those established by law.
merchandise, or other things which do not
have as their principal object the furnishing The owner has also a right of action against
or ornamenting of a building, except where the holder and possessor of the thing in
from the context of the law, or the order to recover it.
individual declaration, the contrary clearly
appears. (346a) The rights of an owner:
1. Right to Enjoy
II. Ownership a. Right to Possess
A. In General i. The right to hold a thing or
to enjoy a right. It means
6.
that the thing or right is
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over subject to control of my will.
things or rights. b. Right to Use
Ownership (def.) – Ownership is the i. The right to exclude any
independent and general right of a person to person, as a rule, from the
control a thing particularly in his possession, enjoyment and disposal
enjoyment, disposition, and recovery, subject thereof.
to no restrictions except those imposed by the
state or private persons, without prejudice to 1. Reasonable force
the provisions of the law. may be used to
prevent or repel
Independent – stands by itself and gives you physical invasion.
the right to control the property
2. But to recover, no
General - possession, enjoyment, disposition, force, but legal
and recovery means must be
used.
Kinds of Ownership (not discussed)
c. Right to the Fruits
(a) Full ownership – this includes all
i. What
the rights of an owner.
2. Right to Dispose
(b) Naked ownership – this is
ownership where the right to a. Right to Consume, Destroy, or
use and the fruits has been Abuse
denied.
b. Right To Encumber Or Alienate

cmt Page 8 of 42 3/7/2004


3. Right to Recover one year from
demand to vacate.
iii. ISSUE? The issue
Actions to Recover Property:
involved is mere physical
1. Recovery of Personal Property possession and not juridical
possession nor ownership.
a. Replevin
**Difference between unlawful detainer and
2. Recovery of Real Property forcible entry: UD possession of other is
a. Forcible Entry (MTC) initially lawful; FE possession is unlawful from
the outset
i. WHAT? This is a
summary action to recover c. Accion Publiciana (plenary
physical possession of real action)
property when a person i. WHAT? This is the action
originally in possession was for the recovery of the
deprived thereof by FISTS better right to possess.
(force, intimidation, stealth,
threats, strategy) ii. WHEN? Must be brought
within ten years.
Possession is unlawful from
the beginning. iii. ISSUE? The issue
involved is who has a better
ii. WHEN? Must be brought right to posses; de jure and
within one year from not de facto possession is
dispossession; but in case the issue here.
of strategy or stealth, the
period should be counted d. Accion Reivindicatoria
from discovery.
i. WHAT? This is an action
iii. ISSUE? The issue to recover ownership over
involved is mere physical real property.
possession and not juridical
ii. WHEN? This must be
possession nor ownership.
brought within 10/30 years
b. Unlawful Detainer (MTC) depending on whether the
other party seeks to obtain
i. WHAT? This is the action ownership through
that must be brought when ordinary/extraordinary
possession by a landlord, prescription.
vendor, vendee or other
person of any land or iii. ISSUE? The issue
building is being unlawfully involved is one of
withheld after the expiration ownership.
or termination of the right
to hold possession by virtue Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a
of any contract. thing has the right to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
Possession is lawful form For this purpose, he may use such force as
the beginning. may be reasonably necessary to repel or
ii. WHEN? Must be brought prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
within one year from the physical invasion or usurpation of his
time the possession property.
becomes unlawful. Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence
1. One year from his land or tenements by means of walls,
expiration of lease; ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any
or other means without detriment to
servitudes constituted thereon.
2. If the reason is non-
payment of rent,

cmt Page 9 of 42 3/7/2004


Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make Acquisitive prescription: (1) GOOD FAITH
use thereof in such manner as to injure the 10 years with just title and adverse
rights of a third person. possession; (2) BAD FAITH 30 years in
adverse possession.
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of another with Heirs of Miranda v. CA (skipped)
the same, if the interference is necessary to In 1957, the son of Miranda, acting as
avert an imminent danger and the administrator of the estate, sold the property
threatened damage, compared to the in issue to private respondent, Agerico. The
damage arising to the owner from the property was titled in the name of Agerico’s
interference, is much greater. The owner daughter, Charito; Agerico has been in
may demand from the person benefited possession and cultivation since then.
indemnity for the damage to him.
In 1991, the heirs of Miranda entered the
property and prevented Agerico from
cultivating it; an action for forcible entry was
7. brought and the heirs of Miranda were
ordered to vacate the land.
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of The heirs filed a complaint for declaration of
ownership. The true owner must resort to nullity of the title.
judicial process for the recovery of the ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to
property. Agerico/Charito or to the heirs of Miranda.
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the HELD: The property belongs to
property must be identified, and the Agerico/Charito. The action of the heirs has
plaintiff must rely on the strength of his been barred by prescription.
title and not on the weakness of the
Ownership over real property is acquired by
defendant's claim.
acquisitive prescription through adverse
Requisites In An Action To Recover: possession with title and in good faith for ten
years.
1. Property must be identified
Without need of title or of good faith,
a. WHY? Burden of proof lies on the ownership and other real rights over
party who asserts the affirmative of immovables is acquired through uninterrupted
an issue. adverse possession for 30 years.
The description should be so In this case, not only could the private
definite that an officer of the court respondents claim acquisitive prescription in
might ho to the locality where the good faith (they had title and possessed the
land is situated and definitely locate property in good faith for well over ten years),
it. they could also claim ownership through
Is a technical description required extraordinary prescription by possessing the
or will a statement of boundaries property in the concept of owner for thirty
suffice? years.

If in a developed area, land will be


sufficiently subdivided.
It is a well settled rule that a title, once
2. Reliance on title of the plaintiff and not on registered, cannot be defeated even by
the weakness of the defense’s claim. adverse, open, and notorious possession.

a. Best proof is a Torrens certificate. Heirs of Vencilao v. CA (skipped)

b. Tax receipts, tax declarations are The heirs of Vencilao claim that they (and
only prima facie evidence of prior to them, their father) have been in
ownership; it is rebuttable. adverse possession of the property in issue
for over thirty years. They present tax
receipts and CARP documents to support their
claim.

cmt Page 10 of 42 3/7/2004


The Gepalagos (private respondents) claim complain of the reasonable requirements of
ownership of the land based on the TCT. They aerial navigation.
claim to have acquired the land in a public
Surface Right of a Land Owner is subject
bidding following its foreclosure by PNB.
to:
ISSUE: Who has a better right to the land: a
1. Servitudes or easements;
claimant by acquisitive prescription or a
claimant by deed of sale recorded in the TCT 2. Special Laws (mining law);
of the vendor/mortgagee as highest bidder in
a foreclosure sale? 3. ordinances;

HELD: The titled owner has a better right. 4. reasonable requirements of aerial
navigation;
It is a well settled rule that a title, once
registered, cannot be defeated even by 5. Principles on human relations and the
adverse, open, and notorious possession. prevention of injury to the rights of
third persons (unnecessary obstruction
When the TCT is in the name of the seller of the light and view of a neighbor).
when the land is sold, the buyer has a right to
rely on what appears on the face of the
document. If there is nothing that indicates Art. 438. * Hidden treasure belongs to the
any irregularity, as is the case here, he in not
owner of the land, building, or other
expected to make further investigations or
property on which it is found.
inquiries.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on
The only exception is when an irregularity
the property of another, or of the State or
appears and the buyer chooses to ignore the
any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-
same; in this case, they are no longer
half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If
innocent purchasers for value.
the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be
On the other hand, the heirs of Vencilao are entitled to any share of the treasure.
estopped from claiming ownership to the land
If the things found be of interest to science or
due to their silence (1) when the property was
the arts, the State may acquire them at
mortgaged; (2) foreclosed; and (3) sold.
their just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated.

Art. 439. *(technical description) By


treasure is understood, for legal purposes,
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his
any hidden and unknown deposit of money,
property except by competent authority and
jewelry, or other precious objects, the
for public use and always upon payment of
lawful ownership of which does not appear.
just compensation.
Requisites:
Should this requirement be not first complied
with, the courts shall protect and, in a 1. Hidden and unknown deposit (finding it
proper case, restore the owner in his must be a discovery;
possession.
2. Consists of money, jewelry, or other
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or precious objects;
seized by competent authority in the
interest of health, safety or security, the 3. Their lawful ownership does not appear.
owner thereof shall not be entitled to Meaning of other precious objects:
compensation, unless he can show that
such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. 1. Restricted by ejusdem generis to mean
objects of the same class as money and
Art. 437. * The owner of a parcel of land is jewelry.
the owner of its surface and of everything
under it, and he can construct thereon any 2. How about money found in a book
works or make any plantations and loaned from the library; who owns the
excavations which he may deem proper, money? School.
without detriment to servitudes and subject Finding in others’ property; requisites:
to special laws and ordinances. He cannot
1. It must be by chance

cmt Page 11 of 42 3/7/2004


a. What does by chance mean? 4. painting
SC/Paras – by chance means by
5. writing
good luck.
ii. mixture (confusion –
2. Finder must not be a trespasser.
liquids; commixtion –
solids)
Article 440. The ownership of property
gives the right by accession to everything iii. specification
which is produced thereby, or which is
incorporated or attached thereto, either Is accession a mode of acquiring
naturally or artificially. [OPRAE-PIANA] ownership?

*What is accession? No, the only modes of acquiring ownership are:


[STOPID-Love]
It is the right of a property owner to everything
which is: a) succession

a) produced thereby (accession discreta); b) tradition as a consequence of certain


or contracts

b) incorporated or attached thereto, either c) occupation


naturally or artificially (accession d) prescription
continua).
e) intellectual creation
What are the classifications of accession? f) donation
A. Accession to the fruits (discreta) g) law
a. Natural fruits *What are the reasons behind accession?
b. Industrial fruits a) As to the fruits, justice, pure and
c. Civil fruits simple, because the one who owns the
thing should own its fruits.
B. Accession by attachment or
incorporation (continua) b) As to incorporation and attachment,
the owner of the principal should own
a. Real property the attachment; and economic
convenience (better to have one owner
i. Accession industrial
than two)
1. building
2. planting Article 441. To the owner belongs:
3. sowing (1)The natural fruits;

ii. Accession natural (2)The industrial fruits;

1. alluvium (3)The civil fruits.


2. avulsion Article 442. Natural fruits are the
3. change of spontaneous products of the soil, and the
young and other products of animals.
course of rivers
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of
4. formation of
any kind through cultivation or labor.
islands
Civil fruits are the rents of building, the price
b. Personal property
of leases of lands and other property and the
i. Adjunction or amount of perpetual or life annuities or other
conjunction similar income. [SPS-YOPA, PLAK-CL, RB-
PLLOP-PLAOSI]
1. engrafment
*When does the owner of the land NOT
2. attachment
own the fruits? [PAUL]
3. weaving

cmt Page 12 of 42 3/7/2004


a) Possessor of the land receives the fruits compensation for the risk assumed by the
in good faith; owner, Ledesma.
b) Antichresis, where the creditor gets the
fruits. Article 443. He who receives the fruits has
the obligation to pay the expenses made by
c) Usufructuary (right to enjoy the fruits);
a third person in their production,
d) Lessee gets the natural and industrial gathering, and preservation.
fruits (owner gets civil fruits);
He who receives the fruits is…?
*To whom does the offspring of an animal
belong when the male and female belong … the owner of the land.
to different owners? To whom does this provision apply?
The offspring belongs to the mother because, Article 443 applies only to a planter/possessor
(1) the paternity is uncertain and (2) during in bad faith. The rule is that if the planter is in
pregnancy, the female is useless and her owner good faith, he is entitled to the fruits already
bears the expenses. received.
But if the female is leased, the lessee owns the If the fruits have not yet been gathered?
offspring, because the lease is onerous (if it
were commodatum, the offspring would belong Article 448 applies if the planter or sower is in
to the owner of the female). good faith, Article 449 if he is in bad faith.

A bonus received as compensation for What are the kinds of expenses subject to
the risk taken by a mortgagor who reimbursement?
received no value from the loan is not
considered a civil fruit. a. They must be for production,
gathering, or preservation.
Bachrach Motor Co. v. Talisay-Silay Improvements are not included.
Milling Company.
b. They must be necessary, and not
Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM excessive. They must be those
provided by one of its planters, Ledesma. To normally required by the crop.
compensate Ledesma for the accommodation,
Talisay granted him a bonus whose value What if the expenses exceed the value of
was computed as a percentage of the the product, is the planter in bad faith still
balance of the loan. entitled to reimbursement?
Bachrach, as a creditor of Ledesma, laid a Only if the owner still requires delivery of the
claim to the bonus received by the latter. On fruits.
the other hand, PNB claims that it owns the
fruits, because under Article 2127, the Article 444. Only such as are manifest or
mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the born are considered as natural or industrial
property. fruits.
ISSUE: Whether the bonus is a civil fruit,
*When can we say that the fruit is in
thereby giving PNB a preferential right over it.
existence?
HELD: The bonus is not a civil fruit. Civil
It depends on the type of fruit:
fruits are the rents of the buildings, leases of
lands, and income from life annuities, or other a. Annual (must be planted every
similar sources of income. year/must re-plant after harvest;
rice, wheat, corn) – deemed
Though it is possible to consider the bonus as
manifest the moment their
income, it is not similar income to the items
seedlings appear. SOWING.
in the preceding enumeration. The common
denominator, which is absent in the bonus, is b. Perennial (only planted once and
derivation of the income from the land itself. bear fruit for several seasons;
mango and coconut trees) –
In this case, the bonus is not based on the
deemed to exist only when they
value of the land but rather on the
actually appear. PLANTING.
amount of the outstanding obligation of
Talisay. It is clearly meant to be

cmt Page 13 of 42 3/7/2004


*When are animal young considered as Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting
existing? are presumed made by the owner and at
They are considered existing even if still in the his expense, unless the contrary is proved.
maternal womb. They should be considered What are the presumptions of Article 446?
existing only at the commencement of the
maximum ordinary period for gestation. a. That all works, sowing and planting
are made by the owner;
*When are civil fruits deemed to exist;
how about natural fruits? b. At his own expense.

a. Civil fruits accrue daily and are Article 447. The owner of the land who
considered personal property and makes thereon, personally or through
may be pro-rated. another, plantings, constructions or works
with the materials of another, shall pay
b. Natural and industrial fruits, while
their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he
still growing, are considered as real
shall also be obliged to the reparation of
property; ordinarily, they cannot be
damages. The owner of the materials shall
pro-rated.
have the right to remove them only in case
he can do so without injury to the work
Ex. House rented for 30,000/month. Apply now constructed, or without the plantings,
the principle that civil fruits accrue daily. constructions or works being destroyed.
Every day, the property produces 1,000 However, if the landowner acted in bad
If B owned the property from 1-5 and B owned faith, the owner of the materials may
the property from 16-30, A is entitled to 15K remove them in any event, with a right to
and B is entitled to 15K. If A is paid 30K at the be reimbursed for damages.
beginning of the month, he should deliver half
When is the builder/landowner in good
of that to B. This is because civil fruits accrue
faith/ bad faith?
DAILY.
When he believed the materials were his
own/knew the materials belonged to another.
Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or
sown on the land of another and the When is the owner of the materials in good
improvements or repairs made thereon, faith/bad faith?
belong to the owner of the land, subject to
the provisions of the following articles. When he does not know that his materials were
being used/when he knows and does not object.

* What are the basic principles of Ex. A built house with B’s materials. Both were
accession continua (accession industrial)? in good faith. What are the rights of the
parties? Who calls the shots?
a. Accessory follows the principal
B. B is entitled to remove the materials
b. With certain exceptions, it should provided no damage is caused. If this cannot be
be impossible to separate the done or if B doesn’t want to remove the
principal and accessory without materials, A may be compelled to pay for the
causing substantial damage. materials.
c. He who is in good faith may be held If A is in bad faith, B can remove the materials,
responsible but not penalized. regardless of damage caused or demand
payment, with damages in either case.
d. He who is in bad faith may be
penalized. If B is in bad faith, A may keep the materials.
There is no indemnity and A may seek for
e. When both are in bad faith, they
damages because the materials may be inferior
shall be treated as if they were in
in quality.
good faith.
If both are in bad faith, they will be treated as if
f. No one shall unjustly enrich himself
they were in good faith.
at the expense of another.

Article 448. The owner of the land on


which anything has been built, sown or

cmt Page 14 of 42 3/7/2004


planted in good faith, shall have the right to are spent or add value to the
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or property.
planting, after payment of the indemnity
3. Luxurious expenses
provided in articles 546 and 548, or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay a. These are reimbursable only if
the price of the land, and the one who the landowner decides to
sowed, the proper rent. appropriate them.
However, the builder or planter cannot be
obliged to buy the land if its value is Can the owner of the land choose to
considerable more than that of the building appropriate and then later change his
or trees. In such case, he shall pay mind?
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land No, the choice is irrevocable. Once the choice
does not choose to appropriate the building has been made, in case it is the option to
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties purchase the improvement, the duty is
shall agree upon the terms of the lease and monetary and the landowner’s properties may
in case of disagreement, the court shall fix be levied to satisfy the debt.
the terms thereof.
What if the owner refuses to make a
choice?
What are the rules on good faith in Article
448? There are no remedies except those provided
by the law in Article 448.
Both must be in good faith.
In this case, I THINK that the builder in good
Who is given the choice and why? What
faith should ask the court to determine a
are the choices?
reasonable amount of rent and deposit the
The owner must be given the choice because same regularly with the court.
the accessory follows the principal:
What if the owner chooses to appropriate
a) He may appropriate what has been the building, what is his obligation?
built, planted, or sown.
The landowner must now indemnify the builder
b) He may compel the builder or planter to for the value of the building.
buy the land and the sower to pay
What if after choosing to appropriate the
rents.
building, the landowner fails to pay?
These are the only choices he has. He cannot
The builder has the right to occupy the building
compel removal of the improvement. However,
up to the date of payment. He has the right of
if he opts to sell the portion to the builder and
retention until payment is made.
the builder fails to pay, he may demolish the
structure. What if the owner above allows the builder
to remain but charges rentals for
What are the indemnities to be given to possession of the land?
the builder in good faith? No rentals may be charged. The landowner is
1. Necessary expenses not the owner of the property until
indemnification is made.
a. Those made for the
preservation of the thing If the landowner chooses to compel the
builder to buy the land, can the builder be
b. those without which the thing obliged to purchase the land?
would deteriorate or be lost
Generally, yes, unless the value of the land is
c. those incurred for cultivation, considerably more than the value of the
production, and upkeep building. However if the value of the land is not
d. Repairs required by the wear considerably more, the builder may be
and tear due to the natural use compelled.
of the thing. If this is the case, they can agree on terms of
2. Useful expenses lease, and in case of disagreement, the courts
shall fix the same.
a. Those that augment the income
of the thing upon which they

cmt Page 15 of 42 3/7/2004


If the builder is the son of the landowner In computing the amount to be paid to a
and permission is granted, the builder is in builder in good faith, the FMV of the
good faith. structure should be used. The right of
retention enjoyed by the builder allows
If the land is co-owned, and the land is
him to possess the property and its fruits
partitioned, with part of one house
until he is fully indemnified; he cannot be
encroaching on the other’s partition.
made to pay rents.
In this case, Article 448 applies. Even though
Pecson v. CA
the construction wasn’t on the land of another,
the subsequent partition caused 448 to apply Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he
(Del Ocampo v. Abesia). What should the built an apartment building. The lot was sold
landowner choose? Sell the small portion of the at public auction because of his failure to pay
land because what will be the use of a portion realty taxes. Private respondents, Nuguids,
of a building? are now the owners of the lot.
When Pecson challenged the auction, it was
When the structures built in good faith held that the apartment building was not
on the land of another are of a temporary included in the execution because the
character, Article 448 applies, but only certificate of sale was silent on the issue of
as to indemnity. The landowner is not the building.
compelled to choose between
appropriating the property and selling However, in separate suit for recovery of
the land. possession, the owners of the lot caused
judgment to be rendered ordering Pecson to
Alviola v. CA transfer the building for the original cost of
Alviola occupied Tinagan’s land and built a construction, 53K.
copra drier and put up a store where they Pecson was also ordered to pay rentals of 21K
engaged in copra trade; this was done in bad per month (the income of the building from its
faith but with the tolerance of Tinagan. tenants) until he vacates the premises.
Several years later, the heirs of Tinagan filed ISSUE: Whether the construction value of the
a complaint for recovery of possession against building should be paid; whether Pecson
Alviola. Alviola claims that the copra dryer should pay rent.
and store are permanent structures (hollow-
block walls and cement floor) and that 448 HELD: The fair market value of the building
should apply. should be paid. Pecson is entitled to the right
of retention; he enjoys ownership until he is
ISSUE: Whether 448 should apply. fully compensated.
HELD: 448 should apply. The objective of Article 546 is to administer
Since both parties were in bad faith, they will justice between the parties; in this case, this
be treated as if they were in good faith for can be accomplished by giving Pecson the
purposes of indemnity and Article 448 will present value of the building.
apply: the builder of the structures will pay Article 546 also provides that a possessor in
rent until the structures are dismantled. good faith, as Pecson is, may retain the thing
However, the dryer and store are temporary until he is reimbursed for it. It follows that if
structures. They to not have a permanent Pecson is allowed to retain possession of the
character and were not attached to the soil thing, he is also allowed to retain the income
with an idea of perpetuity. generated by the building and not pay rent.

Since the structures are merely temporary,


the landowner does not have to choose
between buying the structures and selling the
property.

cmt Page 16 of 42 3/7/2004


Good faith is presumed; good faith on the of a deed of sale (unregistered sale v.
part of the builder passes on to his registered mortgage).
successor.
HELD: Yes. SOLID no longer had ownership
The builder’s right of retention exists and free disposal when it mortgaged the
only when the landowner opts to property; it had no authority to do so.
purchase the property; if the choice is
Though the rule is that a purchaser need not
compulsory sale, the builder must pay
go beyond the four corners of the title, the
rent until transfer of ownership.
exception is where the purchases has
Tecnogas v. CA knowledge of facts to induce a prudent man
to inquire into the status of the property.
Tecnogas’s property encroached on Uy’s
property. The CA held that, though Tecnogas SIH, knowing the trade of SOLID, should have
purchased the property with improvements made sure there was no adverse claim on the
already constructed, it was in bad faith property before accepting it as a mortgage; it
because an owner of a property is supposed was not a purchaser in good faith. This
to know its metes and bounds. negligence takes the place of registration of
the rights of the Oretas.
ISSUE: Whether Article 448 applies.
HELD: Yes. Good faith is presumed and since
there was no showing of bad faith on the part Article 448 does not apply to co-owners;
of the original builder, the character of but when the property is partitioned and
possession passes on to the current the circumstances covered by 448 are
possessor. present, it may be applied.
Unless one is versed in the science of Del Ocampo v. Abesia
surveying, no one can determine the
precise extent or location of his property Del OCampo and Abeisa are co-owners of the
by merely examining his title. subject property; 2/3 and 1/3, respectively.
An action for partition was filed and the
Article 448 provides that a property owner on partition showed that the house of Abesia
whose property there has been built a occupied 5 sqm. of the property of Del
structure by another, in good faith, shall have Ocampo.
the option to appropriate said structure upon
payment of indemnity or sell the portion ISSUE: Whether Article 448 can apply to this
encroached upon to the other. case considering the parties are co-owners.

Uy must choose between the two options in HELD: Article 448 cannot apply to co-
Article 448. Tecnogas should pay rent on the ownership situations. However, because the
land until the time Uy communicates his property was partitioned, Article 448 now
choice. If the choice is compulsory sale, applies.
Tecnogas should continue paying rent until
transfer of ownership.
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in
bad faith on the land of another, loses what
The rule: a purchaser need not go is built, planted or sown without right to
beyond the title. The exception: where indemnity.
there are facts that would induce a
reasonably prudent man to make further Art. 450. The owner of the land on which
inquiries. anything has been built, planted or sown in
bad faith may demand the demolition of the
State Investment House v. CA work, or that the planting or sowing be
removed, in order to replace things in their
Sps. Oreta purchased a house and lot from
former condition at the expense of the
SOLID. Before a deed of sale could be
person who built, planted or sowed;
executed, SOLID mortgaged the property to
SIH; it was foreclosed. or he may compel the builder or planter to pay
the price of the land, and the sower the
ISSUE: Whether the Oretas have a better
proper rent.
right over the property, despite the absence

cmt Page 17 of 42 3/7/2004


Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding desire to resolve the contract but Datu Idiris
articles, the landowner is entitled to never returned the money he received.
damages from the builder, planter or sower. Mrs. Usman then sold the lots to Angeles, who
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in planted 3000 coconut trees; Angeles knew of
bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the ongoing dispute between Idiris and
the necessary expenses of preservation of Usman.
the land. Datu Idiris filed a complaint for recovery of
possession of the land, which Usman did not
Does Article 449 refer to both standing and contest. Idiris was adjudged to be owner after
gathered crops? which he sold the land to Lumungo.

No, Article 449 applies only to standing crops, It has been settled that Lumungo has a
not to gathered crops which are governed by better right to the property and the only
Article 443 (the planter/sower is entitled to question is…
reimbursement for expenses in their gathering, ISSUE: Whether Angeles is entitled to
production, and preservation). reimbursement for the trees planted.

If B builds, in bad faith, a house on A’s HELD: Angeles is NOT entitled to


land (A being in good faith), what are the reimbursement
alternative rights of A? Article 449 provides that he who plants in bad
1. A may get the house without paying faith on the land of another loses the right to
indemnity. indemnity. Article 452, on the other hand,
provides that the planter in bad faith is
2. A may demand demolition of the house, entitled to reimbursement for necessary
at B’s expense. expenses for preservation of the land.
3. A may compel B to buy the land, In this case, the planter, Angeles, knew of the
whether or not the value is considerably dispute over the land when he purchased the
more than that of the house. same.
A IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN EACH While Article 449 applies, Article 452 does
CASE. not, because trees are not necessary
expenses for the preservation of the land;
B IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR
they are IMPROVEMENTS.
NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR PRESERVATION
OF THE LAND Lumungo may appropriate (for free) the
trees, compel Angeles to pay for the land, or
What is the rule on reimbursement of a order their demolition at the expense of
builder in bad faith? Angeles, with damages in either case.

He must be reimbursed the necessary expenses


for the preservation of the land because the
true owner would have borne such expenses A successor-in-interest is bound by the
anyway. judgment (and summons) against his
predecessors. Construction on the
Land taxes, though not technically necessary litigated land after such
expenses, are reimbursable. judgment/summons is construction in
bad faith.
A buyer of land under litigation, with Santos v. Mojica
knowledge of the same, is a buyer in bad
faith. The lot in question was partitioned and
Santos’s parents were ordered to pay rents
A builder/planter in bad faith is not for the portion they were occupying.
entitled to reimbursement for
improvements. They failed to pay and a writ of execution was
issued ordering them to vacate the lot.
Lumungo v. Usman
Leonardo, who was not a party to the suit,
Datu Idiris sold the property in question to owned a house on the lot – this house was
Mrs. Usman; there was partial payment. reconstructed into a bigger one after his
Subsequently, both parties expressed their

cmt Page 18 of 42 3/7/2004


parents were summoned in the above part because they repeatedly gave him verbal
mentioned case. and written orders to cease his construction.
The judge, Mojica, ordered the house Articles 449-451 apply; the Baguilat’s have
demolished. the option to: (1) take possession of the
building without payment of indemnity; (2)
ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Santos is in good
demand the destruction of the building at
faith, thereby entitling him to the benefits of
Bugatti’s expense; or (3) compel Bugatti to
Article 448.
purchase the land whether or not its value
HELD: No, Santos is in BAD FAITH, the house considerably exceeds the value of the
should be demolished. As such, any improvement. They are also entitled to
improvements he made are lost in favor of damages equivalent to rentals beginning from
the landowners (3 options). the time of occupation until eventual eviction.

Though not a party to the suit in which his


parents were ordered to vacate the lot, he Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only
was bound by the judgment because his claim on the part of the person who built, planted
was under that of his parents; he is their or sowed on the land of another, but also
successor in interest. on the part of the owner of such land, the
rights of one and the other shall be the
same as though both had acted in good
A prospective lessee who builds on the faith.
land of a prospective lessor despite the It is understood that there is bad faith on the
absence of a valid contract and the part of the landowner whenever the act was
presence of objections to the done with his knowledge and without
construction is clearly in bad faith. opposition on his part.
Bugatti v. CA What is the definition of bad faith?
Bugatti approached Sps. Baguilat and inquired 1. Landowner
into the lease of their land; they agreed
provided that the contract would contain a. When the act
certain terms and conditions. In a meeting, (building/planting/sowing) was
the spouses laid down their terms and done with his knowledge and
conditions: the lease would be for 9 years at without opposition on his part.
500 per month; and a building not exceeding
b. When he buys land knowing that
40k would be constructed by Bugatti with the
there has been construction by a
cost of the building offsetting the lease.
person other than the owner and
Even before preparing the lease, Bugatti who pays only for the land.
occupied the property and began
2. Builder
construction.
a. When building / planting / sowing is
ISSUE: Whether Bugatti is a builder in good
knowingly done on land belonging
faith?
to another.
HELD: No, Bugatti is a builder in BAD faith.
The determination of Bugatti’s good or bad Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad
faith rests on whether there was a valid faith and the builder, planter or sower
contract between the parties giving him the proceeded in good faith, the provisions of
right to occupy and build upon the land – article 447 shall apply.
there was none.
If B, in good faith, builds on A’s land, A
It is obvious that the essential element of being in bad faith, B may:
consent was absent. There was no meeting of
the minds between the parties. 1. Compel A to pay for the house +
damages; or
There is bad faith on Bugatti’s part because
2. Remove or destroy the house +
he had no right to occupy the property, much
less construct a building thereupon. Neither damages.
can Bugatti claim bad faith on the Baguilats

cmt Page 19 of 42 3/7/2004


Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds a. Appropriate the improvement;
belong to a third person who has not acted b. Compel A to purchase the land,
in bad faith, the owner of the land shall regardless of cost; or
answer subsidiarily for their value and only
in the event that the one who made use of c. Demolish the structure at A’s
them has no property with which to pay. expense.

This provision shall not apply if the owner


makes use of the right granted by article Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the
450. preceding articles, good faith does not
necessarily exclude negligence, which gives
If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds right to damages under article 2176.
has been paid by the builder, planter or
sower, the latter may demand from the What is the liability for negligence?
landowner the value of the materials and
The negligent party must pay for the damage
labor.
done.
How many parties are involved in this
provision? Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining
Three: the banks of rivers belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the
1. The owner of the materials; effects of the current of the waters.
2. The builder; What is accretion?
a. Primarily liable for the cost of Accretion is the process whereby the soil is
the materials. deposited.
3. The landowner. The soil is alluvium.
a. Subsidiarily liable for the cost of What are the forms of accretion?
the materials, IF he makes use
of the materials (appropriates 1. Allluvium
the improvement).
2. Avulsion
b. Must reimburse the builder who
3. Change of course of rivers
has paid for the materials IF he
makes use of the materials 4. Formation of islands
(appropriates the
What is alluvium?
improvement).
Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the
c. Not liable if he chooses to
lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and
compel the builder to purchase
gradually received as an effect of the current of
the land (this is the right
the waters.
granted by Article 450).
What are the essential elements of
A, in bad faith, uses the materials of B, alluvium? [CREIG]
who is also in bad faith, to build on X’s
(a) The deposit should be gradual and
land. What are their rights and
imperceptible (as a process);
obligations?
(b) Cause is the current of the river and
(a) A and B shall be treated as if they were
not artificial;
both in good faith, as far as rights
between them are concerned. A must (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake,
reimburse B for the cost of the Spanish Law of Waters applies; if sea,
materials. deposit belongs to the state);
(b) In case A cannot pay for the materials, (d) The river must continue to exist; if
X is NOT subsidiarily liable because B is not, Article 461 applies;
in bad faith as to him.
(e) The increase must be comparatively
(c) X is entitled to damages from A and B little and not such that would increase
and may: he area of the riparian land by 150%.

cmt Page 20 of 42 3/7/2004


It is NOT necessary that: (2) that it be the result of the action of the
river; (3) that the land where accretion takes
a. The riparian owner should make
place is adjacent to the riverbank.
an express act of possession,
the accession being Applying the rules, the land Manalo claims by
automatically his the moment accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307.
the soil deposit can be seen; However, the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but
to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo.
b. The riparian owner has
This submerged potion belongs not to him but
completely paid for the value of
to the State.
the riparian estate, as long as
he has already the beneficial or The law of waters states that the natural bed
equitable title. of a river is the highest ground covered by its
waters during the highest floods. Hence, the
What are the reasons why alluvium is
submerged portion is part of the river bed
granted the riparian owner? [CECEAU]
which, under the Civil Code, is property of
(a) To compensate him for the loss he public domain; it cannot come under private
may suffer due to erosion or the ownership.
destructive force of the water and
danger from floods;
(b) To compensate him because the Ronquillo v. CA
property is subject to encumbrances Estero Calubcub changed course due to
and legal easements; dumping by the people living alongside it.
(c) The interests of agriculture require Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since
that the soil be given to the person who 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960, immediately
is in the best position to cultivate the after learning of the occupation, ordered him
same; to vacate the lot.
(d) It cannot be said from whom the soil The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the
came, it may as well be given to the dried up bed as riparian owners; Ronquillo
person who can best utilize it. claims the courts have no jurisdiction because
the land is public and subject to the
Binalay v. Manalo disposition of the Director of Lands.
Binalay purchased two parcels of land which ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or
were later consolidated into one title, Lot 307. private land.
The title of one of the parcels of land
HELD: The dried up bed was artificially
indicated that it included a portion which was
caused; it does not fall under 307/461. Under
submerged annually by the Cagayan River
Article 502, it is property of the public
during the wet months. However, when the
domain. Being of public character, its sale is
survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was
dependent on the Director of Lands. Since the
conducted, the said portion was submerged
state needs said property for drainage
and was not included in the consolidated title.
purposes, it cannot be the subject of a sale.
During the wet months, the perennially
submerged portion causes the river to have
two branches, with an island formed in the Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, Heirs of Pascual
middle; the strip of land is denominated as
Lots 821 and 822. Pascual sought to have land registered; which
he claimed the land was an accretion to his
Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by property. Pascual’s property is bounded on
accretion. the west by the Bulacan River, on the east by
ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by the Talisay River, and on the north by Manila
accretion to the perennially submerged Bay. The land sought to be registered as
portion. accretion is at the tip of Pascual’s property.

HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. Navarro, who had a fishpond lease of the
foreshore with the Bureau of Lands, opposed
There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the Pascual’s registration.
deposit should be gradual and imperceptible;

cmt Page 21 of 42 3/7/2004


During the pendency of the registration case, Definitions:
Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment
POND – a body of stagnant water without an
against Navarro.
outlet, larger than a puddle but smaller than a
The CA held that the land was Pascual’s by lake, or like a body of water with a small outlet.
accretion and Navarro should turn over to the
LAGOON – a small lake, ordinarily of fresh
latter the portion of the same covered by his
water, and is not very deep, fed by floods, the
foreshore lease.
hollow bed of which is bounded by the
ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascual’s by elevations of the land.
accretion.
HELD: No, the land is property of the public Gov’t v. Colegio de San Jose
domain. The Gov’t and Colegio claim ownership over a
There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the parcel of land which is covered by Laguna de
deposit should be gradual and imperceptible; Bay during the wet season. Colegio had title
(2) that it be the result of the action of the to land up to the lakeshore.
river; (3) that the land where accretion takes The State claims the land is part of the
place is adjacent to the riverbank. lakeshore and of the public domain.
In this case, 2 of the 3 requisites are were not ISSUE: Whether the is Colegio’s or the
met. The accretion was a result not of the State’s.
flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. This is
clear from the fact that the accretion is at the HELD: The land is Colegio’s.
northern tip of the property, adjacent to Laguna is a lake, which is defined as a body of
Manila Bay. water formed in depressions of the earth. It is
ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers,
brooks, or springs, and connected to the sea
Ferrer v. Bautista by them.
Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE
accretion; Bautista claims it by virtue of a free BAY’S BED.
patent granted by the Director of Lands.
Undeniably, Laguna de Bay is a lake, and its
The land is immediately south of Ferrer’s bed is public. What then is its bed? The law of
property. waters defines the bed as level of the water at
the highest ordinary depth. This in turn is
ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrer’s by
considered as the level during the dry season.
accretion or Bautista’s by virtue of a free
patent. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. LDB
IS A LAKE, NOT A LAGOON.
HELD: The land is Ferrer’s by accretion.
The Gov’t also relies on Article 367/458 which
Alluvion gives to the owners of lands adjoining
provides that the owners of estates adjoining
the banks of rivers or streams any accretion
ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left
which is gradually received from the current
dry by the natural decrease of the waters or
of the water. The rationale if to provide some
lose the land inundated in extraordinary
compensation to the owners because of it
floods.
subjection to destructive forces and
easements. However, LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a
LAKE.
When the accretion was created, its
ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS
the Director of Lands had no authority to ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES,
grant a free patent over it. CREEKS, RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO
REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE
OWNERS.
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining
ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land Even if the land was formed by accretion, they
left dry by the natural decrease of the still belong to Colegio.
waters, or lose that inundated by them in
extraordinary floods.

cmt Page 22 of 42 3/7/2004


Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, 459 provides that when land is segregated
creek or torrent segregates from an estate and transferred to another estate, the owner
on its bank a known portion of land and of the segregated portion retains ownership
transfers it to another estate, the owner of provided he removes the same within 2 years.
the land to which the segregated portion 463 provides that when the current of a river
belonged retains the ownership of it, separates a portion of land from an estate,
provided that he removes the same within the owner retains possession.
two years.

This article refers to avulsion, which is: Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on
1. the process whereby the current of a title to real property or any interest therein,
river, creek or torrent segregates from by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
an estate on its bank a know portion of encumbrance or proceeding which is
land and deposits it on another. apparently valid or effective but is in truth
and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
2. The removal of a considerable quantity unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to
of earth upon or annexation to the land said title, an action may be brought to
of another, suddenly and by the remove such cloud or to quiet such title.
perceptible action of the water.
An action may also be brought to prevent a
cloud from being case upon title to real
Alluvium v. Avulsion
property or any interest therein.
Alluvium Avulsion
Gradual Sudden or abrupt What kinds of actions are referred to in
Soil cannot be Identifiable Article 476?
identified 1. Remedial; and
Belongs to owner of Belongs to owner from
property to which it is whose property it was 2. Preventative.
attached attached What “cloud” is referred to?
The cloud (or doubt) on title exists because:
Agustin v. IAC
a) of an instrument or record or claim or
Agustin owned the property to the east of the encumbrance or proceeding;
Cagayan river; Melad owned the property to
the west. b) which is apparently valid or effective;

Over 49 years, the river gradually shifted c) but is, actually invalid, ineffective,
from west to east, reducing Agustin’s property void, unenforceable, extinguished, or
and increasing Melad’s. barred by prescription;

In 1968, a big flood occurred, causing the bed d) and may be prejudicial to thte title.
to river to revert to its original course, cutting
into Melad’s land.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the
Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the land, the prescriptive period within
eastern portion of the river until Agustin which to quiet title accrues only form the
drove them out. time the adverse claim is made known.
ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the Faja v. CA
property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of
the river to its original course. Frial claims that Faja had been illegally
occupying his titled property for 30 years. He
HELD: The land is Melad’s. also claims that Faja’s right to question the
Melad acquired by accretion the land which validity of the title had prescribed, more than
was gradually deposited on his property. 10 having passed since the issuance of the
decree of registration.
This ownership was not lost by the reversion
of the river to its original course; which Faja claims that Frial never owned the
reversion cut through Melad’s property. property and his title was obtained through
fraud. In her counterclaim, she prays that she
Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation. be declared lawful owner of the property.

cmt Page 23 of 42 3/7/2004


Summary judgment was rendered in favor of ISSUE: Whether the right of Cabrera to
Frial. recover on the implied trust had already
prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to
question/quiet title had already prescribed. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed;
though an action for reconveyance of property
HELD: The action had not yet prescribed; an
based on a constructive trust prescribes ten
action to quiet title to property in the
years from the date of titling of the property,
possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible.
this applies only when the trustee is not in
The prescriptive period began to run against possession of the property.
Faja only from the time she was served with
When the trustee is in possession of the land
the complaint giving her notice that the
sought to be reconveyed, the right to
property she had been occupying was titled in
reconveyance does not prescribe because one
Frial’s name.
who is in actual possession of a piece of land
It is settled that one who is in actual claiming to be owner thereof may wait until
possession of land claiming to be owner his possession is disturbed before taking steps
thereof may wait until his possession is to vindicate his right.
disturbed or his title is attacked before taking
The reason being that undisturbed possession
steps to vindicate his right (or to quiet title).
gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a
The reason being that undisturbed possession court of equity to ascertain and determine the
gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a nature of the adverse claim of a third party
court of equity to ascertain and determine the and its effect on his own title, which right can
nature of the adverse claim of a third party be claimed only by one who is in possession.
and its effect on his own title, which right can
be claimed only by one who is in possession.
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the
land, the prescriptive period within
Where the plaintiff is in possession of the which to quiet title accrues only form the
land, the prescriptive period within time the adverse claim is made known.
which to quiet title accrues only form the
Spouses Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. J. Moson
time the adverse claim is made known.
Plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title which
Viuda de Cabrera v. CA
was dismissed by the judge who stated that
Teokemian Sr. died, leaving 3 children with a they had no standing to bring such action
parcel of land. A deed of sale was signed by since they did not have legal or equitable
ony two of the children (Felicidad Teokemian title.
did not sign), conveying the property to Orais.
Plaintiffs have been in open and adverse
Orais had the entire property surveyed and possession of the property since time
registered, including the 1/3 share of immemorial.
Felicidad Tokemian.
ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs have legal or
Felicidad Teokemian remained in continuous equitable title to the property.
possession of her 1/3 share, later selling it to
HELD: Plaintiffs have legal and equitable title
Cabrera, who likewise occupied the lot.
to the property.
Thirty years after the issuance of the title,
Legal title means registered ownership while
Orais filed an action for reconveyance
equitable title means beneficial ownership.
(quieting of title), praying that the Cabreras
However, title to property does not
be ordered to vacate the property.
necessarily mena the OCT; it can connote
Cabrera claims that there is was an implied acquisitive prescription by possession in the
trust created when Orais acquired the concept of owner.
property through fraud.
Orais claims that the action to recover on the
implied trust had already prescribed, more Where the plaintiff is in possession of the
than ten years having elapsed. land, the prescriptive period within
which to quiet title accrues only form the
time the adverse claim is made known.

cmt Page 24 of 42 3/7/2004


Titong v. CA Also, an action for partition does not
prescribe.
Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa;
the latter then sold it to private respondent
Laurio. Titong, however, continued cultivating
and tilling the land already sold and had been Paulmitan v. CA
doing so for 20 years, when Laurio entered Donato and his brother inherited property
the property and attempted to till it himself. from their mother. Donato caused the
Titong filed an action for quieting of title. property to be registered in his name,
claiming he was the only surviving heir. He
ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title later sold the property to his daughter,
was proper; whether Titong has a right to the Fanesa.
property.
The property was levied by the government
HELD: An action for quieting of title was for tax delinquency and was redeemed by
improper. The Civil Code provides that such Fanesa.
action is availing only when there is a cloud
on title by reason of any instrument, record, The heirs of his brother filed a complaint to
claim, encumbrance or proceeding. In this partition the property plus damages.
case, none of the causes were present; the Donato’s daughter claims exclusive ownership
only possible action would have been forcible by virtue of the 2 sales and prescription.
entry.
ISSUE: Whether Fanesa is sole owner of the
The true issue is a boundary dispute. Titong property.
has no right over the property. He cannot
claim ordinary acquisitive prescription HELD: No. Donato’s sale of the property to
because he sold the property and yet altered his daughter was inofficious as far as the
the boundary line – obvious bad faith. other half belonging to his brother was
concerned.
Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent,
possession being less than 30 years. However, can it be said that when Fanesa
redeemed the entire property from the State,
she became sole owner?
Del Banco v. IAC No. Redemption is not a mode of terminating
ownership. The redemption by one co-owner
Brothers Pansacol purchased an island in
of the entire property does not vest title over
Tayabas as co-owners. Several agreements
the same. Fanesa has a lien over the property
were later executed as to the extent of
and is entitled to reimbursement.
ownership of each.
Later, an action for partition was brought by
successors in interest of the original co- Mariano v. CA
owners; this was opposed by the successors
of the other co-owners, who claimed that they Gosiengfao mortgaged the lot in question; he
had exclusive ownership of the properties died and then the mortgage was foreclosed.
which had already been partitioned. He left several heirs but only one, Amparo,
ISSUE: Whether an the island property had redeemed the property. Some of the other
already been partitioned by virtue of the heirs assigned their right to redeem in favor
agreements entered into by the co-owners. of Amparo; others did not (Grace).

HELD: There was no physical partition; there Amparo then sold the lot to Mariano. When
was only ideal partition as to the share of Grace learned of the sale, she filed a
each co-owner. complaint for recovery of possession and legal
redemption with damages against Mariano.
That the parties have been in possession of
portions of the lot and have even acquired ISSUE: Whether Grace has a right to the
titles thereto, there is no proof of partition. property.

Partition requires a subdivision plain with HELD: Yes. It is settled that redemption of a
respective titles issued to each; simple co-owner inures to the benefit of all other co-
agreement is insufficient. owners.

cmt Page 25 of 42 3/7/2004


(a) a separate interest in a unit in a
residential, commercial, or industrial
Adille v. CA building; and
Felisa, the original owner of the property had (b) an undivided interest in common
children by two marriages: Adille from the directly or indirectly, in the land on
first and the Asejos from the second. which it is located and other common
Felisa sold the property, pacto de retro, then areas of the building.
died. Adille was able to redeem the property (c) It may include, in addition, a separate
and executed a deed of partition representing interest in other portions of such real
himself to be the sole heir of Felisa thereby property.
allowing him to title the land in his name.
Sec. 4. Condominium act applies only if the
The Asejos filed for partition with accounting, master or enabling deed is registered in the
claiming Adille was only a trustee. In fact, an registry of property and annotated on the
Asejo had all the while been occupying a certificate/s of title of the land if such was
portion of the property. registered under the Land Registration or
ISSUE: Whether the Asejos have a right to Cadastral Acts.
the property. The master deed shall contain the following:
HELD: Yes. It is settled that redemption of a 1. Description of the land
co-owner inures to the benefit of all other co-
owners. 2. Description of the building
Redemption is a necessary expense and the 3. Description of the common areas
Civil Code provides that each co-owner shall
4. Statement of the exact nature of the
have a right to compel the other co-owners to
interest acquired by the purchaser in the
contribute to the expenses of preservation.
unit
Adille is then a trustee who acquired the
5. Statement of the purposes for which the
property through fraud.
building and units will be used
Twenty five years have passed since he had
6. Certificate of the registered owner of the
the land titled in his name, has prescription
property, if he is other than those executing
set in?
the master deed
No. Prescription as a means of terminating co-
7. The following plans:
ownership must be preceded by repudiation,
which is subject to the following conditions: a. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of
the building
1. co-owner repudiated co-ownership;
8. Any reasonable restriction not contrary to
2. such act is made known to the co-owners;
law on the right of the condominium owner
3. the evidence is clear and conclusive; to dispose of his condominium.
4. he has been in possession in concept of Master deed may be amended, revoked, upon
owner for the required period. registration instrument executed by registered
owners.
In this case, the co-owners were kept in the
dark regarding the titling in his name. Sec. 5. Any transfer of a unit shall include the
Moreover, one Asejo continued to enjoy transfer of the undivided interest in the
possession of a portion of the property. common areas or the membership in the
corporation PROVIDED, where the common
Prescription shall begin from the moment that areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners,
the Asejos learned of the fraud. no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino
citizens or corporations, except in cases of
CONDOMINIUM ACT succession.
What is a condominium? Sec. 6. Unless otherwise provided in the master
It is an interest in real property consisting of: deed, the incidents of a condo grant are as
follows:
1. The boundary are the interior surfaces of
the walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and

cmt Page 26 of 42 3/7/2004


door. Not included are utilities, heating, annotation because you are a stockholder of the
conduits, etc. corporation.
2. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of 1 vote per unit.
the unit
No pay of dues, lien by corporation on units.
3. Unless otherwise provided, common areas
held in common by unit owners – equal
share for one unit Not every purchaser of a condominium
4. easement for ingress egress per unit unit is a shareholder in the corporation.
The Mater Deed determines when
5. right to paint fix interior ownership of the unit and participation in
the corporation vests in the purchaser.
6. right to mortgage, pledge,
Sunset View Condominium Corp. v.
7. right to sell unless master deed requires
Campos
offer to condominium owner.
Sunset View filed for the collection of
What is a condominium? assessments levied against private
respondents herein.
What is a separate interest in a unit?
The private respondents interposed the
Interest in common in land and common areas? objection that the City Court and CFI have no
Can you sell unit but retain common areas? NO jurisdiction.

Directly or indirectly? Direct – each unit owner The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the
own common area; indirect – stockholder Condominium Act, the private respondents
corporation owns were holders of separate interests and
consequently shareholders of the Sunset
What is a condominium corporation? Manages View.
land, common areas and to hold indirect
interest in the land and common areas. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its
grievance with the SEC, which has exclusive
If you own condo unit where there is no condo original jurisdiction over controversies arising
corporation, can you sell you unit to the between shareholders of a corporation.
foreigner? NO.
ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts
If corporation – yes provided Filipino interest have jurisdiction over the claims filed by
remains 60% or more. Sunset View, the condominium corporation.
Declaration of Restrictions must also be HELD: The City Court and the CFI have
registered. jurisdiction.
Existence of condominium corporation The private respondents are not members
coterminous with the building. or shareholders in the condominium
corporation.
Check out differences between regular
corporation and condo The Condominium Act leaves to the Master
Deed the determination of when the
Purpose – hold title over land and common shareholding in the corporation will be
areas transferred to the purchaser of the unit.
Existence – 50 yrs In this case, the Master Deed provides that
ownership is transferred only upon full
Dissolution – ordinary may be voluntarily
payment of the purchase price.
dissolved; condo – subject to conditions
provided by law: project destroyed, Private respondents have not yet fully paid
uninhabitable, etc. the purchase price, hence they are not
shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction
Whenever you buy a unit, you are given a title
over the claims.
(condo cert of title) but no title to the land. The
sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of *now, special courts handle intra-corporate
title, if there is no condo corp. I fthere is a disputes
condo corp, land is in name of corp, no more

cmt Page 27 of 42 3/7/2004


No alterations may be made without the Article 491. None of the co-owners shall,
written consent of the homeowners; without the consent of the others, make
upon full payment of the purchase price, alterations in the thing owned in common,
title must be transferred, despite a even though benefits for all would result
mortgage constituted by the developer; therefrom.
the developer must provide parking.
However, if the withholding of the consent by
G.O.A.L. v. CA one or more of the co-owners is clearly
NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to prejudicial to the common interest, the
construct a condominium. Construction began courts may afford adequate relief.
but the contractor abandoned the project *What is an alteration?
when it was only 60% completed.
(1) It is a CHANGE;
A year after the abandonment by the
contractor, GOAL offered units for sale; (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT;
private respondents were purchasers who had
(3) And changes the USE of the thing;
fully paid for the units.
(4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the
GOAL obtained an additional loan from NHA to
thing or its enjoyment by others.
continue construction with a condition
imposed by the latter for the former to hold Or, according to Manresa:
on to the certificate/s of title.
It is an act of ownership, which may be material
Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes
stop the illegal continuation of the use), and gives rise to a real right over the
construction; (2) to deliver private property owned in common.
respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title; (3) to
provide adequate parking spaces. What are examples of an alteration?
The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the 1. Sale, donation, or mortgage of the
respondents. whole property (the transaction would be
ISSUE: Whether the developer, GOAL, can be void only to the extent of the co-owner who
compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation did not consent);
of the construction; (2) to deliver private 2. Sale, donation or mortgage of part of
respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title; (3) to the property with definite boundaries (the
provide adequate parking spaces. sale is valid but subject to the result of the
HELD: Yes. PD 957 provides: subsequent partition);

(1)No developer can alter plans without the 3. A voluntary easement;


permission of the HLURB and the written 4. Lease of real property if
conformity of the homeowners. This is an
amendment of the master deed. a. The lease is registered;

(2)Upon full payment of the purchase price, b. Or the lease is for more than one
the developer is mandated by law to year (whether recorded or not)
deliver the certificate/s of title to the 5. The construction of a house on a lot
buyers. In fact, even if the unit is owned in common;
mortgaged by the developer, the
developer must redeem the mortgaged 6. Any other act of strict dominion or
and deliver certificate/s of title to the ownership where any encumbrance or
buyer. disposition was held implicitly to be an act
of alteration;
(3)Only street parking is excluded from what
should be given for free by the developer. 7. Impliedly, contracts of long duration.
Free parking may be in the basement or on
the first floor. Furthermore, in a When is an alteration deemed illegal?
condominium, unit owners have an
undivided interest over common areas and An alteration is deemed illegal when it is made
facilities, including parking spaces. without the express or implied consent of the
co-owners.

cmt Page 28 of 42 3/7/2004


Note that implied consent by the others will not HELD: No. The co-ownership has already
give the one making the alteration the right to been terminated.
seek reimbursement.
Article 484 provides that there is no co-
ownership when the different portions owned
What are the effects of an illegal
by different people are already concretely
alteration?
determined and separately identifiable.
1. The co-owner responsible may lose what
In this case, it is evident that the deeds of
he has spent;
sale to each son particularly identified the
2. He would be liable for losses and damages; conveyed portion of the master lot.

3. Benefits derived by the co-ownership


belong to it; Article 492. For the administration and
better enjoyment of the thing owned in
4. Demolition can be compelled;
common, the resolutions of the majority of
5. In case a house is constructed on a the co-owners shall be binding.
common lot, all the co-owners will be
There shall be no majority unless the
entitled to a proportionate share of the
resolution is approved by the co-owners
rent.
who represent the controlling interest in the
object of the co-ownership.
Imperial v. CA
Should there be no majority, or should the
Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited resolution of the majority be seriously
2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. To prejudicial to those interested in the
facilitate titling of the lots, A executed a property owned in common, the court, at
waiver of rights in favor of Mariano; another the instance of an interested party, shall
document was executed where Mariano order such measures as it may deem
acknowledged the simulated character of the proper, including the appointment of an
waiver and Adela’s ½ share in the inheritance. administrator.
Fraudulently, M sold 1052 to a third person/s. Whenever a part of the thing belongs
The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the
to give the heirs of A their share in the remainder is owned in common, the
proceeds, he is deemed to have waived his preceding provisions shall apply only to the
right to 1091. Damages were also awarded. part owned in common.

Imperial effectively partitioned the property. What are acts of administration of


management?
The SC affirmed the CA’s decision.
They are those:
(a) that do not involve an alteration;
There is no co-ownership when the
(b) those that may be renewed from time to
different portions owned by different
time;
people are already concretely
determined and separately identifiable. (c) those that have transitory effects, that is,
do not bind the co-ownership for a long
Si v. CA
time in the future;
The Armada siblings, C, J, and S, received
(d) those that do not give rise to a real right
from their parents property in Pasay. The
over the thing owned in common; those,
deeds of sale particularly described the
which even if called an alteration, do not
portion conveyed to each son in metes and
affect the substance or nature of the thing;
bounds. However, the certificate of title of the
original lot remained intact. (e) those for the common benefit of all the
co-owners and not for only one or some of
C later sold his share to Si. J and S sought to
them.
annul the sale, claiming they had a right of
redemption.
How can we tell if the act is alteration or
ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right administration?
of redemption.

cmt Page 29 of 42 3/7/2004


What are examples of acts of The sale is valid only insofar as his share is
administration? concerned.
(a) Lease of one year or less, if unregistered; In case a co-owner sells his share, who
participates in the partition, the vendor or
(b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third
the vendee?
person as administrator.
It depends. If the vendee is already in
What are the limitations on the right of the
possession, then he alone may participate. If,
financial majority?
however, after the share is sold, the vendor
(a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of retains a real right over it, both he and the
resolutions; vendee may participate.

(b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty Can a co-owner’s share be attached even if
of meeting would justify proceeding without there hasn’t been partition?
notice;
Yes.
(c) The minority may appeal to the court
If A, B and C are co-owners of a residence,
against the majority decision when:
each owning a floor, can one of them sell
a. There is no real majority; his share to a third person/s who will
convert the same into a factory?
b. The majority refuses to
correct abuse of administration No. In this case, the use of the building would
or maladministration; change and the interests of the others would be
jeopardized.
c. The minority is made victim of
fraud; If A and B own a common dwelling, can one of
them sell his share to a stranger?
d. An alteration is agreed upon.
No. The interest and privacy of the other would
e. The resolution is SERIOUSLY be jeopardized. “Personal right,” as it is used in
PREJUDICIAL to the rights of Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a
an individual co-owner; technical term.
i. Loans without sufficient
security; Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged
ii. Encumbrance or to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-
disposition is made owner may demand at ANY TIME the
(alteration); partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned.
iii. Abusive administrator is
not replaced. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing
undivided for a certain period of time, not
exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the term may be extended by a new
full ownership of his part and the fruits agreement.
and benefits pertaining thereto, and
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a
he may therefore alienate, assign or period which shall not exceed twenty years.
mortgage it and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when Neither shall there be any partition when it is
personal rights are involved. prohibited by law.

But the effect of the alienation or the No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs
shall be limited to the portion which may so long as he expressly or impliedly
be allotted to him in the division upon the recognizes the co-ownership.
termination of the co-ownership.
*What is the reason for allowing partition
What is the effect of a co-owner’s sale of at ANY TIME?
the entire property without authority of The law discourages co-ownership because to
the others? remain in such an arrangement subjects a
person to the desires of the rest and conflicts in
management are bound to arise.

cmt Page 30 of 42 3/7/2004


*When may a co-owner NOT successfully In 1953, Galileo caused the property to be
demand partition? registered in his name alone.
(a) if by agreement, partition is prohibited (10 In 1968, the heirs of the excluded siblings
years max.); brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for
the partition or reconveyance of the property.
(b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or
testator (20 years max.); ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded
siblings have a right of action against the
What if all donees agree to partition then heirs of Galileo.
donor challenges partition? HELD: No; the action has already prescribed.
The donation may be revoked due to a violation Generally, prescription does not run against
of a condition imposed by the donor. co-owners, as long as the one possessing
What if heirs violate partition prohibition recognizes the co-ownership.
of testator? However, a co-owner in possession of the co-
No one can bring an action to challenge owned property is deemed an implied trustee
partition. and possession adverse to the implied trust is
recognized as a repudiation of the co-
What about administrator? ownership.

(c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG); This repudiation, if made unequivocally and
with knowledge to the co-owners, if proved
(d) if physical partition would render the convincingly, can cause prescription to run.
property unserviceable (the property may
be allotted to one who will indemnify the When Galileo registered the property in his
others or it may be sold to a third name, this is deemed to be a repudiation
person/s); sufficient to cause the running of prescription.

(e) if the legal nature of the common property An action to reconvey land based on an
does not allow partition (like party walls). implied trust prescribes after 10 years – the
action was brought 15 years after the
registration.
Requirements
a. Repudiation with notice
b. Must be in a clear and convincing manner
A contract providing for the non-
c. Other requirements of prescription
dissolution of the co-ownership until the
d. Period of prescription subdivided lots are sold is valid.
Tuason v. Tuason, Gregorio Araneta, Inc.
Is a tax declaration in one’s name
repudiation? One of the three Tuason siblings sold her
share to GA. GA then proposed to the
It is not sufficient notice of repudiation. remaining two the subdivision of the property
and its sale to the public; both assented.
Is registration of property in one’s name
repudiation? The terms of the contract provided that the
co-ownership should subsist until all of the
Yes, registration is sufficient repudiation. subdivided lots have been sold.
One of the Tuason siblings decided that she
Registration of the co-owned property by wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a
a co-owner is an act of repudiation and is complaint for partition. The lower court
a constructive trust wherein the action to dismissed the complaint.
assail must be brought within 10 years of
registration. In her appeal, she raised the issue of:

Si v. CA ISSUE: Whether the terms of the contract


requiring co-ownership until the sale of all the
Siblings Galileo, Eulalio, Juanita, and Vicente lots is contrary to the Civil Code provision
inherited a parcel of land from their brother.

cmt Page 31 of 42 3/7/2004


prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to son of Eliseo had been occupying the property
remain part of the community. even before the death of the testators.
HELD: The contract is perfectly valid.
The contract is, in fact, designed for the
Article 495. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the preceding article, the co-
ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership.
owners cannot demand a physical
At the time of the appeal, already 97.5% of
division of the thing owned in common,
the subdivision had been sold, and for a
when to do so would render it
handsome profit as well.
unserviceable for the use for which it is
The co-owners being forced to remain in the intended. But the co-ownership may be
co-ownership should be taken to be a means terminated in accordance with Article 498.
to an end of disposing the lots and
terminating the co-ownership. Article 496. Partition may be made by
agreement between the parties or by
Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
years? Could there be an indirect violation of governed by the Rules of Court insofar as
Article 494? they are consistent with this Code.
No, by agreeing to subdivide, develop, and
What are the classifications of partition?
sell the property, the parties actually entered
into an agreement for partition. As to CAUSE:
1. extrajudicial or conventional

Clear repudiation is required for 2. judicial


prescription to run against co-owners. As to PERMANENCE:
Santos v. Santos 1. provisional or temporary
Eliseo and Ladislao Santos, brothers, inherited 2. permanent
from their sister and father, parcels of land.
Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a As to SUBJECT MATTER:
Combined Deed of Partition whereby the
1. real property
latter conveyed the entire property to the
former. 2. personal property
When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES:
partition, Eliseo set up the defense of the
1. partition by judicial decree
Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive
prescription. 2. partition registered in the Registry of
Property
ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of
action. 3. partition in a private instrument
HELD: Yes, the co-ownership subsists. 4. partition in a public instrument
Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which 5. oral partition
his claim is based. The claim of subsisting
ownership must be refuted by the best What law governs partition?
evidence obtainable.
a. The Civil Code
The issue more important is prescription:
Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share b. Suppletorily, the Rules of Court.
through prescription?
No. Prescription of an action to recover from What must a person seeking partition do?
an implied trust requires clear repudiation He must set forth in his complaint the (1)
by the possessor of the object of the co- description of the real estate, the (2)
ownership. In this case, there was no such nature and extent of his title, and he must
repudiation. (3) join all those with an interest in the
property as defendants.
Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property
belonging to Ladislao, this can be considered What must the court do if it finds that
as being assented to by the latter since the plaintiff has a right to demand partition?

cmt Page 32 of 42 3/7/2004


It shall order partition of the property. Her heirs now claim that the property was
conjugal, having been acquired during the
The parties may partition the property among
marriage of their parents. Being so, upon the
themselves.
death of their father, they became owners of
What if the parties fail to agree on the one half of the property.
partition?
Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal,
The court will appoint not more than 3 the certificate/s of title indicating that
disinterested persons as commissioners to Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her
make the partition, commanding them to name. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes
allocate to the parties a part of the property as redeemed the property after a previous
the court shall order. mortgage, it became hers alone.
ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the
property was valid.
Partition may be oral or written; in a
private or public document. HELD: Yes, the mortgage was valid.

Pada Kilario v. CA, Pada Though as a rule, a co-owner can dispose or


encumber only his share of the co-ownership,
During Jacinto’s lifetime, he allowed his in this case, the certificate/s of title indicated
brother, the father of petitioner herein, to Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the
occupy a portion of his property. property.
When Jacinto died, his heirs executed an A person dealing with registered land is not
extrajudicial partition in a private document. required to go beyond the certificate/s of title
They asked petitioner to leave the property; to determine the condition of the property.
she refused. An action for ejectment was
filed.
Where several properties were orally
Petitioner claims that the partition was invalid
partitioned but one was inadvertently
for being in a private document and that the
left out of the court order approving the
portion she is occupying was subsequently
partition, the oral partition shall be given
donated to her by a number of the heirs of
effect.
Jacinto.
Maestrado v. CA
ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in
a private document is valid. Ramon Chavez died, leaving several heirs.
HELD: Yes, the partition is valid. A partition An oral partition was conducted and the same
may be in a public or private document or was approved by the court.
even oral.
Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador
Since the partition was valid, the conveyance received lot 3046.
to petitioner is invalid because those who
made the conveyance were no longer owners Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots, including
of the property conveyed. the property in dispute, lot 5872.
However, 5872 was not included in the
court’s order approving the partition.
Where a co-owned property is titled in
To set things straight, Concepcion, Angel,
the name of one co-owner and there is
Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors)
no indication on the certificate/s of title
executed quitclaims confirming the existence
of co-ownership, a third person may rely
of the oral partition.
on the face of the title in his purchase of
the said property. Subsequently, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo,
and Salvador (or their successors) requested
Cruz v. Leis
for the partition of 5872 and the distribution
Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz; this of their respective shares.
was secured by a REM on the subject
Petitioners, Josefa and Carmen filed an action
property. She failed to pay and the property
for quieting of title.
was foreclosed.

cmt Page 33 of 42 3/7/2004


ISSUE: Whether private respondents, Of course, essentially indivisible objects, such
Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or as automobiles.
their successors), have a right to the
However, essentially divisible objects, such as
property.
land, may also be covered if their division would
HELD: They have no right. be to the prejudice of the interests of the
parties.
The property was ceded to petitioners upon
the execution of the oral partition which they What is the procedure in the partition of an
themselves confirmed in their quitclaims. essentially indivisible object?
1. Allot the thing to a co-owner, who shall
Article 497. The creditors or assignees of indemnify the others;
the co-owners may take part in the division 2. If the above is not agreed upon, sell the
of the thing owned in common and object thing and distribute the proceeds.
to its being effected without their
concurrence.
Article 499. The partition of a thing
But they cannot impugn any partition already owned in common shall not prejudice third
executed, unless there has been fraud, or in persons, who shall retain the rights of
case it was made notwithstanding a formal mortgage, servitude, or any other real
opposition presented to prevent it, without rights belonging to them before the
prejudice to the right of the debtor or division was made.
assignor to maintain its validity.
Personal rights pertaining to third persons
*May creditors or assignees impugn a against the co-ownership shall also remain
partition already executed? in force, notwithstanding the partition.
Generally they may NOT, except: If A, B, and C, as co-owners of a lot,
1. Where there has been fraud; mortgage the same to X and then
subsequently partition it, what happens to
2. Where a formal opposition has been the mortgage?
previously presented.
The mortgage would subsist over the 3 post-
Is a mortgage sufficient security against partition lots.
fraud? Who are third person/s in this article?
Yes. All those who did not participate in the
partition.
Who are the creditors referred to in this
article? Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be
a mutual accounting for benefits received
All creditors who became so during the and reimbursements for expenses made.
existence of the co-ownership. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for
In case a co-owner sells his share, who damages caused by reason of his
participates in the partition, the vendor or negligence or fraud.
the vendee?
Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after
It depends. If the vendee is already in partition, be liable for defects of title and
possession, then he alone may participate. If, quality of the portion assigned to each of
however, after the share is sold, the vendor the co-owners.
retains a real right over it, both he and the
vendee may participate. *What are the effects of partition?
1. mutual accounting for benefits received;
Article 498. Whenever the thing is 2. mutual reimbursement for expenses;
essentially indivisible and the co-owners
cannot agree that it be allotted to one of 3. indemnity for damages caused by
them who shall indemnify the others, it negligence or fraud;
shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. 4. reciprocal warranty for:
What objects are included in this article? a. defects of title

cmt Page 34 of 42 3/7/2004


b. quality or hidden defects (a) Grammatical – mere holding without
having any right (thief)
5. each former co-owner is deemed to have
had exclusive possession of the part (b) Juridical – possession with juridical title
allotted to him for the entire period during but not ownership (lessee, depositary,
which the co-possession lasted; pledge)
6. partition confers upon each the exclusive (c) Real – possession with just title but not
title over his respective share. from the true owner (purchase of
property not owned by seller in good
How is co-ownership extinguished?
faith
1. judicial partition;
(d) Dominium – possession with a title of
2. extrajudicial partition; dominium or a just title from the owner
3. prescription by co-owner; *What are the requisites or elements of
possession?
4. prescription by stranger;
(a) There must be a holding, detention or
5. merger in one co-owner; control of a thing or a right, actual or
6. loss or destruction; constructive;

7. expropriation. (b) There must be a deliberate intention


to possess; this is a state of mind
If A and B partitioned land co-owned by (animus possidendi);
them and later, X successfully claims (c) The possession must be by virtue of
ownership of the land allotted to A, what one’s own right (real or dominium; not
happens? possession because of agency)
A and B must both bear the loss. B must give What does actual or constructive holding
half of the land allotted to him to A. or detention mean?
Ex. There is a large tract of land, of which the

POSSESSION owner actually occupies only a fraction and


constructively occupies the rest.
It is essential in constructive possession that
Article 523. Possession is the holding of a the property be not in the adverse possession
thing or the enjoyment of a right. of another.
What are the classes of possession?
Why entire property to possession?
(a) In one’s own name or that of another
Possessor may not be owner. Possession here is (Article 524);
separate from ownership.
(b) In the concept of owner and in the
Is possession a fact or a right? concept of holder(Article 525);

Both. It is a fact since it exists; but from the (c) In good or bad faith.
moment it exists, certain consequences follow, Are ownership and possession the same?
making it also a right.
No. Ownership is different from possession.
What are the viewpoints of possession? Though one owns property, the right to possess
1. Jus possidendi or right TO possession – the same may be in the hands of another as a
this is an incident of ownership. tenant or lessee.

Ex. I own a house; I am entitled to


possess it. Article 524. Possession may be exercised
in one’s own name or in that of another.
2. Jus possesionis or right OF possession –
this is a right independent of ownership. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of
land?
Ex. I am renting a house; I am entitled
to possess it. The lessor, through the tenant, is in actual
possession in the concept of owner.
*What are the degrees of possession?

cmt Page 35 of 42 3/7/2004


The lessee is in actual possession in the concept De Luna was able to prove prior
of holder. possession through the testimony of his
tenants who had been occupying the land
What are the kinds of possession in
for several years – this is the possession
another’s name?
exercised by De Luna in another’s name.
(a) Voluntary – as when the agent
De Luna also proved through a neighbor’s
possesses for the principal by virtue of
testimony that Dequiña’s father delivered the
agreement;
property to him and his mother.
(b) Necessary – as when a mother
However, since Dimaano alleged that
possesses for a child still in her womb;
Dequiña, and not De Luna, owned the
(c) Unauthorized – this will become the property, the court felt the need to look into
principal’s possession only after there the issue of ownership.
has been a ratification without prejudice
Dimaano attempted to prove Dequiña’s
to the effects of negotiorum gestio
ownership through tax declarations by the
(officious management).
latter on the property but the court held that
Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third this alone was not sufficient to prove
person, can the OWNER of the property ownership. The court held that the prior
bring an action for forcible entry? possession of De Luna beats the flimsy claim
of Dimaano without prejudice to the
Yes. The landlord was in actual possession
subsequent determination of true ownership
through the tenant and stands to lose
in an appropriate proceeding.
possession and even ownership.

Possession may be exercised in another’s Article 525. The possession of things or


name. Article 524 of the Civil Code rights may be had in one of two concepts:
provides: “Possession may be exercised either in the concept of owner, or in that of
in one’s own name or that of another.” the holder of the thing or right to keep or
enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to
De Luna v. CA another person.
De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Whose concept?
Dimaano, alleging that the latter entered his
land, began plowing it, and erected a barbed Owner - Your own and others, must act and
wire fence. claim to be owner. Paying taxes, getting
boarders.
Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was
not the owner of the property and that the What is the importance of this classification?
property was actually owned by Dequiña. He
If in concept of holder, the owner benefits from
further claims that Dequiña leased the
your possession.
property to him.
If in the concept of owner, the possessor may
ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised
get the property through acquisitive
in another’s name.
prescription.
HELD: Yes, possession may be exercised in
another’s name. Article 524 of the Civil Code What are the two concepts of possession?
provides: “Possession may be exercised in
one’s own name or that of another.” 1. In the concept of owner – one who,
whether in good or bad faith, claims to
The issue of prior possession had to be be, and acts as if he is the owner.
resolved to determine who had a better right
to possess the property – the rule in 2. In the concept of holder – one who
ejectment cases being that the only issue to recognizes another to be the owner.
be resolved is who is entitled to physical or
material possession of the premises or de Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in
facto possession. good faith who is not aware that there
Now, if De Luna is able to prove prior exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
possession in himself, then he may recover flaw which invalidates it.
possession from Dimaano.

cmt Page 36 of 42 3/7/2004


He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who Good faith is always presumed and bad
possesses in any case contrary to the faith must be established by clear and
foregoing. convincing evidence.
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of Carreon v. Agcaoili
law may be the basis of good faith.
Carreon claimed that property inherited from
The person here is not an owner – there is a her husband was hers along; a corresponding
flaw or defect. certificate/s of title was issued. The land was
later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title
What is the importance of distinguishing gf and
was issued in his name.
bf?
Carreon’s children filed a complaint against
Prescription
Agcaoili to have the deed of sale declared as a
Indemnity mortgage and to recover ½ of the property –
their action was predicated on Agcaoili’s bad
Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the faith.
person on the title GF. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith.
Buys the property from the widow of a HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith.
deceased person, did not know she had children
GF Good faith is always presumed and bad faith
must be established by clear and convincing
Buys land with Torrens but title is annotated lis evidence.
pendens BF
In this case, there was no showing of bad
If you are in the business of lending money, faith on Agcaoili’s part. Though he was a
you have to look beyond the title. townmate of the Carreon’s, he cannot be
expected to know that his vendor had
Can a person in possession of a valid children.
Torrens title be in bad faith?
Besides, the property was titled and the buyer
No. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled had no responsibility to look beyond the title:
with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens which had an expired lien that was of no
title. It has been held by the SC that a holder of consequence to the purchase.
a title is in good faith until such title is declared
null and void by the court.
What kind of mistake may be the basis of One who purchases real property which
good faith? is in the actual possession of others
should, at least, make some inquiry
It must be a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult concerning the rights of those in
question of law provided such ignorance is not possession.
gross and inexcusable.
Republic v. CA.
Is bad faith transmissible to successors in
interest? 102 SCRA 331. L-42856.

Not necessarily. A child or heir may be Ramos filed a Homestead application for land
presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding in Nueva Ecija.
the father’s bad faith. Pending this application, Ramos went to
Isabela and found a piece of land covered by
Article 527. Good faith is always a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly
presumed, and upon him who alleges bad abandoned by the latter. Ramos filed another
faith on the part of the possessor rests the application over this land.
burden of proof. Both Ramos’s applications were granted and
What is the reason for presuming good faith? he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela
land as REM.
Presumption of innocence; everyone should be
presumed honest until proven otherwise. Subsequently, Ramos discovered that there
were people occupying his Isabela land, he
filed a complaint for the recovery of
possession against them and won. These

cmt Page 37 of 42 3/7/2004


people sent a petition to the SANR and Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult
alleged the nullity of Ramos’s second question of law, provided such ignorance
Homestead application, desiring to apply for is not gross and inexcusable, can be the
patents on the same land. basis of good faith.
ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act Kasilag v. Rodriguez
issues, whether PNB, in accepting the REM of
Ambrosia, the mother of the plaintiffs herein,
the Isabela property was in bad faith.
mortgaged, in a public document, the
HELD: PNB was in bad faith. improvements on the property in dispute to
Rodriguez. Because of her failure to pay
One who purchases/accepts for REM real
interests when due, the parties entered into a
property which is in the actual possession of
verbal agreement whereby Rodriguez would
others should, at least, make some inquiry
condone interest but take possession of the
concerning the rights of those in possession.
land and enjoy the fruits; he also introduced
In the absence of such an inquiry, PNB cannot signifact improvements.
be considered as a good faith mortgagor as
However, the land was acquired by Ambrosia
against such possessors.
as a homestead and could not be subject to a
However, since Ramos’s title over the land is real encumbrance, as a contract of antichresis
valid, the REM is valid as between Ramos and is.
PNB.
The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the
property from Rodriguez.

There is presumptive knowledge of the ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor


existence of a Torrens Title. in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the
improvements constructed.
J.M. Tuason v. Munar
HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith.
J.M. Tuason, the owner of a subdivision,
brought an action for ejectment against Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of
Munar. law, provided such ignorance is not gross and
inexcusable, can be the basis of good faith.
Munar claims possession in good faith and
raises the defense that Tuason’s certificate/s Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected
of title, which was issued more than 20 years to know the various intricacies of a contract of
before, was void due to fraud and that antichresis.
pursuant to a compromise agreement He is entitled to indemnity.
between Tuason and Deudor (Munar’s
predecessor in interest), Munar had a right to
occupy the property. Article 528. Possession acquired in good
faith does not lose this character except in
ISSUE: Whether Munar can assail Tuason’s the case and from the moment facts exist
decree of registration and corresponding which show that the possessor is not
certificate/s of title 20 years after its issuance unaware that he possesses the thing
and whether Munar was a possessor in good improperly or wrongfully.
faith.
Examples of when bad faith begins:
HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title
20 years after its registration. He is in bad 1. Receipt of judicial summons;
faith because there is presumptive
2. Receipt of a letter demanding vacation
knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s
of the property, if the person does not
of title to Tuason.
investigate and he is later defeated.
Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s
of title and relied on his predecessor’s claim
Article 529. It is presumed that
of ownership.
possession continues to be enjoyed in the
same character in which it was acquired
until the contrary is proved.
What are the presumptions regarding
possession?

cmt Page 38 of 42 3/7/2004


(a) Good faith is presumed; What are the essential requirements for
possession?
(b) Continuity of character of possession;
(a) corpus – the thing physically detained;
(c) Non-interruption of possession;
(b) animus – intent to possess
(d) Presumption of just title;
(express/implied);
(e) Non-interruption of possession of
Can land adversely occupied by one be
property unjustly lost but legally
contstructively possessed by another?
recovered;
No. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim
(f) Possession during intervening period;
of ownership, there is constructive possession
(g) Possession of movable with real of the entire parcel, unless a portion thereof is
property; adversely possessed by another.
(h) Exclusive possession of common
property. Article 532. Possession may be acquired
by the same person who is to enjoy it, by
his legal representative, by his agent, or by
Article 530. Only things and rights which any person without any power whatever;
are susceptible of being appropriated may but in the last case, the possession shall not
be the object of possession. be considered as acquired until the person
What is res nullius and can it be in whose name the act of possession was
possessed? executed has ratified the same, without
prejudice to the consequences of
It is abandoned or ownerless property. It may negotiorum gestio in a proper case.
be possessed but it cannot be acquired through
prescription, which presupposes prior ownership How is possession acquired from the
in another. It can be acquired through viewpoint of who possesses and what are
occupation. the essential requisites for each?
(a) Personal;
Article 531. Possession is acquired by the (a) Intent to possess
material occupation of a thing or the
exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is (b) Capacity to possess
subject to the action of our will, or by the
(c) Object must be capable of
proper acts and legal formalities established
possession.
for acquiring such right.
(b) Through an authorized person;
How is possession acquired?
(d) Intent to possess for a principal
(a) Material occupation or detention
(e) Capacity to possess for another
a. Constitutom possesorium
(possessed as owner, now (f) Principal has intent and capacity
juridical possession) to possess
b. Tradition brevi manu (c) Through an unauthorized person upon
(juridical possession, now ratification (negotiorum gestio).
possesses as owner)
(g) Intent to possess for another
(b) Exercise of a right
(h) Capacity of principal to possess
(c) Subjection to our will – by mere
(i) Ratification by principal
agreement or the delivery of keys
(retroactive)
a. Tradition longa manu
What is negotiorum gestio?
(delivery by consent)
It is the voluntary taking charge of another’s
(d) Constructive possession or proper
business or property without any power from
acts and legal formalities –
the owner when the property or business is
succession, donation, execution of
neglected or abandoned.
public instruments, court order)

cmt Page 39 of 42 3/7/2004


Article 533. The possession of hereditary consequences of the wrongful possession of
property is deemed transmitted to the heir the decedent, if it is not shown that he was
without interruption an from the moment of aware of the flaws affecting it; but the
the death of the decedent, in case the effects of possession in good faith shall not
inheritance is accepted. benefit him except upon the death of the
decedent.
One who validly renounces an inheritance is
deemed never to have possessed the same. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J.H.
yes, JPSP, no.
Importance is for acquisitive prescription.
Article 535. Minors and incapacitated
When does the heir acquire possession of
person may acquire the possession of
the inherited property?
things; but they need the assistance of their
1. If the heir accepts – from the legal representatives in order to exercise
moment of death, since there is no the rights which from the possession arise
interruption; the possession of the in their favor.
deceased is tacked to the possession of
Reason for the rule?
the heir.
Practicality – candy example.
2. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated
to inherit – he is deemed never to have
possessed. Example: A minor may acquire the possession
of a fountain pen donated to him, but in a case
Problem: Father dies on January 1; son of court action regarding ownership of the pen,
accepts on January 30; in the meantime, his legal representatives must intervene.
an administrator manages and is in
possession of the property. What type of acquisition of possession is
referred to in this article?
Who is in possession of the
property from Jan. 1-30? This article refers to acquisition of possession
only in those matters where the incapacitated
The son is in actual possession in the person has capacity to act such as occupation
concept of owner through the of res nullius, succession, prescription, or
admininstrator, who possessed it in the donation.
concept of holder.
Who may institute an action for Article 536. In no case may possession
forcible entry against an intruder? be acquired through force or intimidation as
Either the son or the administrator. long as there is a possessor who objects
thereto.
What happens if the son enters the
property before acceptance? He who believes that he has an action or a
right to deprive another of the holding of a
The administrator may file a complaint thing, must invoke the aid of the competent
for forcible entry against him. court, if the holder should refuse to deliver
the thing.
Problem: A, B, and C inherited, in equal
parts, a parcel of land. What are the modes through which
Day 1: A sold his share to X. possession may not be acquired?

Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. a. Force or Intimidation;

Day 3: Partition is made. b. Tolerance – possession is with the


consent of the owner and redounds to
How much does X get? his benefit;
X gets ½ of the property; this was really A’s c. Clandestine, secret possession.
share upon the death of the father. This is
because B is deemed never to have inherited.
Article 537. Acts merely tolerated, and
those executed clandestinely and without
Article 534. One who succeeds by the knowledge of the possessor of a thing,
hereditary title shall not suffer the or by violence, do not affect possession.

cmt Page 40 of 42 3/7/2004


What does it mean that the “acts…do not (a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of
affect possession?” interest; they are co-owners;
(a) The intruder does not acquire any right (b) possession in different concepts or
to possession; degrees – both owner and tenant are
possessors as a fact at the same time;
(b) The legal possessor, even if ousted, is
one in the concept of owner and the
still the possessor and is:
other in the concept of holder.
a. Entitled to the benefits of
What are the rules or criteria to be used in
prescription;
case of conflict or dispute regarding
b. Entitled to the fruits; possession?

c. Entitled as possessor for all (a) The present possessor shall be


purposes favorable to his preferred;
possession.
(b) If both are present, the one longer in
(c) The intruder cannot acquire the possession;
property by prescription.
(c) If the dates of possession are the same,
You wake up in the morning and there is the one who presents a title;
squatter in your yard – clandestine. (d) If all conditions are equal, the thing
Caretaker on your land with understanding that shall be placed in judicial deposit
he will leave when you need the land – pending determination by the court.
tolerance. What are the rules in case of double sale
or double donation?
Article 538. Possession as a fact cannot In this case, preference of ownership (not
be recognized at the same time in two possession) is determined:
different personalities except in the case of
co-possession. (a) movable property
Should a question arise regarding the fact of a. preference to he who first
possession, the present possessor shall be possessed in good faith
preferred;
(b) immovable property
if there are two possessors, the one longer in
a. first who registered his right in
possession;
good faith in the registry of
if the dates of the possession are the same, property
the one who presents a title;
b. if there was no registration, the
and if all these conditions are equal, the thing person who first possessed in
shall be placed in judicial deposit appending good faith
determination of its possession or
c. if there was no possession, the
ownership through proper proceedings.
person who presents to oldest
title, provided it was acquired in
Does this mean that property can be possessed good faith
by only one?
No, property may be physically possessed by Execution of the deed of sale in a public
more than one but not legally possessed. document is equivalent to delivery of
possession of the property.
Compare to rule on double sale.
Wong v. Carpio
What is the general rule regarding Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue
possession as a fact and what are the of a deed of sale with right to repurchase;
exceptions? Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title.
The general rule is that possession as a fact Mercado visited the property periodically,
cannot be recognized at the same time in two harvested coconuts, and made copra. He did
different personalities. not put up any signs, structures, or anything
to indicate actual possession.
The exceptions are:

cmt Page 41 of 42 3/7/2004


Several years after the sale, Wong went to
the land and saw that it was unoccupied; he
An 82 year old title is incontrovertible
then bought it from Giger and was issued a
and conclusive against the whole world.
certificate/s of title.
Bishop v. CA
A few months after the sale to Wong, Mercado
learned that the former’s laborers built a hut Salang filed an action for recovery of
were occupying the land; Mercado was possession against Bishop, invoking their
pleased. rights as registered owners of the land.
Bishop raised the defense that the land was
Despite his initial elation, Mercado later filed a
part of the public domain and could not have
complaint for forcible entry against Wong.
been registered.
Wong raises the defense that Mercado has not
ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land,
established prior possession and that his acts
based on a certificate/s of title, is better than
of gathering coconuts and making copra were
Bishop’s.
only tolerated by the true owner, Giger.
HELD: Salang has a better right.
ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of
the property. It was necessary to determine ownership in
order to resolve the case for recovery of
HELD: Yes, Mercado had possession. possession.
Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that Salang’s title to the land is based on an OCT
“possession is acquired by the material which was issued 82 years ago. It is now
occupation of a thing or the exercise of a incontrovertible and conclusive against the
right, or by the fact that it is subject to the whole world.
action of our will, or by the proper acts and
legal formalities established for acquiring
such right.”
Vda. de Catchuela v. CA
Also, the execution of a sale through a public
Diaz applied for the lot in question with the
instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the
PHHC, the application was granted and title
thing, unless there is a stipulation to the
was issued. He then sold the property to
contrary.
Francisco, private respondent herein.
Applying the aforementioned doctrines, the
Catchuela had been occupying said property
execution of the deed of sale in a public
for several years when Francisco filed an
document (it was notarized) was
action for ejectment.
equivalent to delivery of possession of
the property. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of
title and reconveyance of property
Since prior possession of Mercado was
proved, Wong must remove himself from the Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela
property. has no cause of action.
It seems that, in relation to Article 531, even ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of
the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a action in the case for cancellation of title and
right to the fruits) constitutes possession. reconveyance of property.
Obiters: HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action.
The SC also said that entry into the property She never acquired a right over the lot in
by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth, as question.
a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of
She has no right to seek its reconveyance or
the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a
continue in its possession; she is a mere
property. The act of entering the property and
squatter with the tolerance of Francisco, the
excluding the rightful possessor therefrom
rightful owner.
implies the exertion of force.
Wong must pay rent from the time he learned
of a defect in his title; in this case, from the
time of service of summons.

cmt Page 42 of 42 3/7/2004