Ladera v.

Hodges
G.R. No. 8027-R, September 23, 1952, Vo. !8, No. 12, "##$%$a Ga&ette 537!
Re'es, (.).L., (.
*+,-S. Paz G. Ladera entered into a contract with C.N. Hodges. Hodges promised to
sell a lot with an area of 278 square meters to Ladera su!"ect to certain terms and
conditions. #he agreement called for a down pa$ment of P 8%%.%% and monthl$
installments of P &.%% each with interest of '( per month until P 2%8& is paid in full. )n
case of failure of the purchaser to ma*e an$ monthl$ pa$ment within +% da$s after it fell
due the contract ma$ !e considered as rescinded or annulled.
Ladera !uilt a house on the lot. Later on she defaulted in the pa$ment of the agreed
monthl$ installment. Hodges filed an action for the e"ectment of Ladera.
#he court issued an alias writ of e,ecution and pursuant thereto the cit$ sheriff le-ied
upon all rights interests and participation o-er the house of Ladera. .t the auction sale
Ladera/s house was sold to .-elino .. 0agno. 0anuel P. 1illa later on purchased the
house from 0agno.
Ladera filed an action against Hodges and the "udgment sale purchasers. 2udgment
was rendered in fa-or of Ladera setting aside the sale for non3compliance with 4ule 56
4ules of Court regarding "udicial sales of real propert$. 7n appeal Hodges contends
that the house !eing !uilt on a lot owned !$ another should !e regarded as mo-a!le or
personal propert$.
/SS01. 8hether or not Ladera/s house is an immo-a!le propert$.
H1L2. 9:;. #he old Ci-il Code numerates among the things declared !$ it as
immo-a!le propert$ the following< lands !uildings roads and constructions of all *ind
adhered to the soil. #he law does not ma*e an$ distinction whether or not the owner of
the lot is the one who !uilt. .lso since the principles of accession regard !uildings and
constructions as mere accessories to the land on which it is !uilt it is logical that said
accessories should parta*e the nature of the principal thing.
3$4da4ao )5s ,ompa4' v. -6e ,$t' +ssessor a4d -reas5rer
G.R. No. L-17870, September 29, 1972, 7 S,R+ 197
Labrador, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner 0indanao =us Compan$ is a pu!lic utilit$ solel$ engaged in
transporting passengers and cargoes !$ motor truc*s o-er its authorized lines in the
)sland of 0indanao collecting rates appro-ed !$ the Pu!lic ;er-ice Commission.
4espondent sought to assess the following real properties of the petitioner> ?a@ Ho!art
:lectric 8elder 0achine ?!@ ;torm =oring 0achine> ?c@ Lathe machine with motor> ?d@
=lac* and Aec*er Grinder> ?e@ P:0C7 H$draulic Press> ?f@ =atter$ charger ?#ungar
'
charge machine@ and ?g@ A3:ngine 8au*esha303Buel. )t was alleged that these
machineries are sitting on cement or wooden platforms and that petitioner is the owner
of the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its #PC motor truc*s a repair
shop !lac*smith and carpentr$ shops and with these machineries which are placed
therein. 4espondent Cit$ .ssessor of Caga$an de 7ro Cit$ assessed at PD D%%
petitionerEs a!o-e3mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the
respondent =oard of #a, .ppeals on the ground that the same are not realt$.
4espondents contend that said equipments though mo-a!le are immo!ilized !$
destination in accordance with paragraph & of .rticle D'& of the New Ci-il Code.
/SS01. 8hether the equipments in question are immo-a!le or mo-a!le properties.
H1L2. #he equipments in question are mo-a!le. ;o that mo-a!le equipments to !e
immo!ilized in contemplation of the law it must first !e Fessential and principal
elementsF of an industr$ or wor*s without which such industr$ or wor*s would !e
Funa!le to function or carr$ on the industrial purpose for which it was esta!lished.F
#hus the Court distinguished those mo-a!le which !ecome immo!ilized !$ destination
!ecause the$ are essential and principal elements in the industr$ from those which ma$
not !e so considered immo!ilized !ecause the$ are merel$ incidental not essential and
principal.
#he tools and equipments in question in this instant case are !$ their nature not
essential and principle municipal elements of petitionerEs !usiness of transporting
passengers and cargoes !$ motor truc*s. #he$ are merel$ incidentalsGacquired as
mo-a!les and used onl$ for e,pedienc$ to facilitate andHor impro-e its ser-ice. :-en
without such tools and equipments its !usiness ma$ !e carried on as petitioner has
carried on without such equipments !efore the war. #he transportation !usiness could
!e carried on without the repair or ser-ice shop if its rolling equipment is repaired or
ser-iced in another shop !elonging to another.
3a8at$ Leas$4g a4d *$4a4%e ,orporat$o4 v. 9earever -e:t$e 3$s, /4%.
G.R. No. L-58!79, 3a' 17, 1983, 122 S,R+ 29
2e ,astro, (.
*+,-S. #o o!tain financial accommodations from the 0a*ati Leasing and Binance
Corporation the 8eare-er #e,tile discounted and assigned se-eral recei-a!les with
them under a Irecei-a!le purchase agreement.J #o secure the collection of recei-a!les
assigned 8eare-er #e,tile e,ecuted a chattel mortgage o-er certain raw materials
in-entor$ as well as machiner$ descri!ed as an aero dr$er stentering range. Cpon
default of 8eare-er #e,tile the 0a*ati Leasing petitioned for e,tra"udicial foreclosure of
the properties mortgaged to it. 8hen the sheriff failed to enter 8eare-er #e,tile/s
premises to seize the machiner$ 0a*ati Leasing applied for a reple-in. 8eare-er
#e,tile contended that it cannot !e a su!"ect of reple-in or a chattel mortgage !ecause
2
it is a real propert$ as it is attached to the ground !$ means of !olts and that the onl$
wa$ to remo-e it is to destro$ the concrete floor.
/SS01. 8hether or not the machiner$ is real or personal propert$.
H1L2. #he machiner$ is a personal propert$. #he ;upreme Court e,plained that if a
house of strong materials ma$ !e considered as personal propert$ for purposes of
e,ecuting a chattel mortgage there is a!solutel$ no reason wh$ a machiner$ which is
mo-a!le in its nature and !ecomes immo!ilized onl$ !$ destination or purpose ma$ not
!e li*ewise treated as such.
Sa4tos 1va4ge$sta v. +to S5ret' a4d /4s5ra4%e ,o., /4%.
G.R. No. L-11139, +pr$ 23, 1958, 103 ;6$. !01
,o4%ep%$o4, (.
*+,-S. 7n 2une D '6D6 ;antos :-angelista instituted a ci-il case for a sum of
mone$. 7n the same date he o!tained a writ of attachment which was le-ied upon a
house !uilt !$ 4i-era on a land situated in 0anila and leased to him. )n due course
"udgment was rendered in fa-or of :-angelista who !ought the house at pu!lic auction
held in compliance with the writ of e,ecution issued in said case. 8hen :-angelista
sought to ta*e possession of the house 4i-era refused to surrender it upon the ground
that he had leased the propert$ from the .lto ;uret$ K )nsurance Co. )nc. and that the
latter is now the true owner of said propert$. )t appears that on 0a$ '% '6&2 a definite
deed of sale of the same house had !een issued to .lto ;uret$ as the highest !idder at
an auction sale held. Hence :-angelista instituted an action against .lto ;uret$ and
4icardo 4i-era for the purpose of esta!lishing his title o-er said house and securing
possession thereof apart from reco-ering damages. .fter due trial the CB) 0anila
rendered "udgment for :-angelista sentencing 4i-era and .lto ;uret$ to deli-er the
house in question to :-angelista and to pa$ him "ointl$ and se-erall$ PD%.%% a month
from 7cto!er '6&2 until said deli-er$ plus costs.
/SS01. 8hether or not a house constructed !$ the lessee of the land on which it is
!uilt should !e dealt with for purposes of attachment as immo-a!le propert$ or as
personal propert$.
H1L2. #he house is not personal propert$ much less a de!t credit or other personal
propert$ not capa!le of manual deli-er$ !ut immo-a!le propert$. .s e,plicitl$ held in
Ladera -s. Hodges ?D8 7G &57D@ Fa true !uilding ?not merel$ superimposed on the soil@
is immo-a!le or real propert$ whether it is erected !$ the owner of the land or !$ a
usufructuar$ or lessee. #he opinion that the house of 4i-era should ha-e !een attached
in accordance with su!section ?c@ of said section 7 as Fpersonal propert$ capa!le of
manual deli-er$ !$ ta*ing and safel$ *eeping in his custod$F for it declared that
F:-angelista could not ha-e -alidl$ purchased 4icardo 4i-eraEs house from the sheriff
5
as the latter was not in possession thereof at the time he sold it at a pu!lic auctionJ is
untena!le.
-sa$ v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 120098, "%tober 2, 2001, 377 S,R+ 32!
<5$s5mb$4g, (.
*+,-S. 7n No-em!er 2+ '67& respondent :-er #e,tile 0ills )nc. ?:1:4#:L@
o!tained a three million peso ?P5%%%%%%.%%@ loan from petitioner Philippine =an* of
Communications ?P=Com@. .s securit$ for the loan :1:4#:L e,ecuted in fa-or of
P=Com a deed of 4eal and Chattel 0ortgage o-er the lot where its factor$ stands and
the chattels located therein. 7n .pril 25 '676 P=Com granted a second loan to
:1:4#:L. #he loan was secured !$ a chattel mortgage o-er personal properties
enumerated in a list attached thereto. .fter .pril 25 '676 the date of the e,ecution of
the second mortgage mentioned a!o-e :1:4#:L purchased -arious machines and
equipments.
Cpon :1:4#:LEs failure to meet its o!ligation to P=Com the latter commenced
e,tra"udicial foreclosure proceedings against :1:4#:L. 7n Aecem!er '& '682 the
first pu!lic auction was held where petitioner P=Com emerged as the highest !idder
and a Certificate of ;ale was issued in its fa-or on the same date. 7n 0arch 7 '68D
P=Com consolidated its ownership o-er the lot and all the properties in it. )n No-em!er
'68+ it leased the entire factor$ premises to petitioner 4u!$ L. #sai. 7n 0a$ 5 '688
P=Com sold the factor$ loc* stoc* and !arrel to #sai including the contested
machineries.
7n 0arch '+ '686 :1:4#:L filed a complaint for annulment of sale recon-e$ance
and damages with the 4egional #rial Court against P=Com. :1:4#:L claimed that no
rights ha-ing !een transmitted to P=Com o-er the assets of insol-ent :1:4#:L
therefore #sai acquired no rights o-er such assets sold to her and should recon-e$ the
assets.
/SS01. 8hether or not the inclusion of the questioned properties in the foreclosed
properties is proper.
H1L2. 9es. 8hile it is true that the questioned properties appear to !e immo!ile a
perusal of the contract of 4eal and Chattel 0ortgage e,ecuted !$ the parties gi-es a
contrar$ indication. )n the case at !ar the true intention of P=C70 and the owner
:1:4#:L is to treat machiner$ and equipment as chattels. .ssuming that the
properties in question are immo-a!le !$ nature nothing detracts the parties from
treating it as chattels to secure an o!ligation under the principle of estoppel. )t has !een
held that an immo-a!le ma$ !e considered a personal propert$ if there is a stipulation
as when it is used as securit$ in the pa$ment of an o!ligation where a chattel mortgage
is e,ecuted o-er it as in the case at !ar.
D
Serg=s ;rod5%ts, /4%. v. ;,/ Leas$4g a4d *$4a4%e, /4%.
G.R. No. 137705, +5g5st 22, 2000, 338 S,R+ !99
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. 4espondent PC) Leasing and Binance )nc. filed with the 4#C of Muezon Cit$ a
complaint for sum of mone$ with an application for a writ of reple-in. . writ of reple-in
was issued directing the sheriff to seize and deli-er the machineries and equipment to
PC) Leasing after fi-e da$s and upon pa$ment of the necessar$ e,penses. #he sheriff
proceeded to petitionerEs factor$ and seized one machiner$. Petitioner filed a motion for
special protecti-e order in-o*ing the power of the court to control the conduct of its
officers and amend and control its processes pra$ing for a directi-e for the sheriff to
defer enforcement of the writ of reple-in. #he motion was opposed !$ PC) on the
ground that the properties were personal and therefore still su!"ect to seizure and writ of
reple-in. )n their repl$ petitioners asserted that the properties were immo-a!le as
defined in .rticle D'& of the Ci-il Code the partiesE agreement to the contrar$
notwithstanding. Petitioners went to the Court of .ppeals -ia an original action for
certiorari. #he Court of .ppeals ruled that the su!"ect machines were personal propert$
as pro-ided !$ the agreement of the parties.
/SS01. 8hether or not the su!"ect machines were personal not real propert$ which
ma$ !e a proper su!"ect of a writ of reple-in.
H1L2. #he contracting parties ma$ -alidl$ stipulate that a real propert$ !e considered
as personal. .fter agreeing to such stipulation the$ are consequentl$ estopped from
claiming otherwise. Cnder the principle of estoppel a part$ to a contract is ordinaril$
precluded from den$ing the truth of an$ material fact found therein. )n the present case
the lease agreement clearl$ pro-ides that the machines in question are to !e
considered as personal properties. Clearl$ then petitioners were estopped from
den$ing the characterization of the su!"ect machines as personal propert$. Cnder the
circumstances the$ are proper su!"ect of the writ of seizure. .ccordingl$ the petition
was denied and the assailed decision of the Court of .ppeals was affirmed.
)5rgos v. ,6$e# o# Sta##, +*;
G.R. No. 7!271, 2e%ember 27, 198!, 133 S,R+ 800
1s%o$4, (.
*+,-S. 7n Aecem!er 7 '682 two search warrants where issued and the premises
at '6 4oad 5 Pro"ect + Muezon Cit$ and 78D Cnits C K A 40; =uilding Muezon
.-enue Muezon Cit$ !usiness addresses of the F0etropolitan 0ailF and F8e BorumF
newspapers were searched. 7ffice and printing machines equipment paraphernalia
motor -ehicles and other articles used in the printing pu!lication and distri!ution of the
&
said newspapers as well as numerous papers documents !oo*s and other written
literature alleged to !e in the possession and control of 2ose =urgos 2r. pu!lisher3editor
of the F8e BorumF newspaper were seized.
/SS01. 8hether or not real properties were seized under the disputed warrants.
H1L2. No. Cnder .rticle D'& ?&@ of the Ci-il Code Fmachiner$ receptacles instruments
or implements intended !$ the owner of the tenement for an industr$ or wor*s which
ma$ !e carried on in a !uilding or on a piece of land and which tend directl$ to meet the
needs of the said industr$ or wor*sF are considered immo-a!le propert$. )n Davao
Sawmill Co. v. Castillo it was said that machiner$ which is mo-a!le !$ nature !ecomes
immo!ilized when placed !$ the owner of the tenement propert$ or plant !ut not so
when placed !$ a tenant usufructuar$ or an$ other person ha-ing onl$ a temporar$
right unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. )n the present case
petitioners do not claim to !e the owners of the land andHor !uilding on which the
machineries were placed. #he machineries while in fact !olted to the ground remain
mo-a!le propert$ suscepti!le to seizure under a search warrant.
Lope& v. "rosa, (r., a4d ;a&a -6eatre, /4%.
G.R. No. L-10817-18, *ebr5ar' 28, 1958, 103 ;6$. 98
*e$:, (.
*+,-S. Lopez was engaged in !usiness under the name Lopez3Castelo ;awmill.
7rosa approached Lopez and in-ited the latter to ma*e an in-estment in the theatre
!usiness he was forming the Plaza #heatre. Lopez e,pressed his unwillingness to
in-est. Nonetheless Lopez agreed to suppl$ the lum!er for the construction of the
theatre. Lopez further agreed that that the pa$ment therefore would !e on demand and
not cash on deli-er$ !asis. Lope, deli-ered the lum!er which was used for the
construction of the Plaza #heatre. Howe-er of the total cost of materials amounting to
P+2 2&&.8& Lopez was paid onl$ P 2% 8D8.&% thus lea-ing a !alance of P D' 77'.5&.
Aue to Lopez/ demands 7rosa issued a deed of assignment o-er his shares of stoc* of
the Plaza #heatre )nc. .s there was still an unpaid !alance Lopez filed a case against
7rosa and Plaza #heatre. He as*ed that 7rosa and Plaza theatre !e held lia!le
solidaril$ for the unpaid !alance and in case defendants failed to pa$ the land and
!uilding should !e sold in pu!lic auction with the proceeds to !e applied to the !alance
or that the shares of stoc* !e sold in pu!lic auction.
/SS01. 8hether or not the lien for the -alue of the materials used in the construction of
the !uilding attaches to said structure alone and does not e,tend to the land on which
the !uilding is adhered to.
H1L2. No. 8hile it is true that generall$ real estate connotes the land and the !uilding
constructed thereon it is o!-ious that the inclusion of the !uilding separate and distinct
+
from the land in the enumeration of what ma$ constitute real properties could onl$
mean one thingGthat a !uilding is !$ itself an immo-a!le propert$. )n -iew of the
a!sence of an$ specific pro-ision to the contrar$ a !uilding is an immo-a!le propert$
irrespecti-e of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to
!elong to the same owner. #he lien so created attaches merel$ to the immo-a!le
propert$ for the construction or repair of which the o!ligation was incurred. #herefore
the lien in fa-or of appellant for the unpaid -alue of the lum!er used in the construction
of the !uilding attaches onl$ to said structure and to no other propert$ of the o!ligors.
>ap v. -a?ada
G.R. No. L-32917, (5' 18, 1988, 173 S,R+ !7!
Narvasa, (.
*+,-S. Goulds Pumps )nternational ?Phil.@ )nc. filed a complaint against 9ap and his
wife see*ing reco-er$ of P'D&6.5% representing the !alance of the price and
installation cost of a water pump in the latterEs premises. Goulds presented e-idence ex
parte and "udgment !$ default was rendered !$ 2udge #aNada requiring 9ap to pa$ to
Goulds the unpaid !alance of the pump purchased !$ him and interest of '2( per
annum.
#hereafter the water pump in question was le-ied !$ the sheriff and !$ notice dated
No-em!er D '6+6 scheduled the e,ecution sale thereof. =ut in -iew of the pendenc$ of
9apEs motion for reconsideration suspension of the sale was directed. )t appears
howe-er that a cop$ of the order suspending the sale was not transmitted to the sheriff
Hence the Aeput$ Pro-incial ;heriff went ahead with the scheduled auction sale and
sold the propert$ le-ied on to Goulds as the highest !idder.
9ap argues that Fthe sale was made without the notice required !$ ;ec. '8 4ule 56 of
the New 4ules of CourtF i.e. notice !$ pu!lication in case of e,ecution sale of real
propert$ the pump and its accessories !eing immo-a!le !ecause attached to the
ground with character of permanenc$ ?.rt. D'& Ci-il Code@.
/SS01. 8hether or not the water pump in question is an immo-a!le propert$.
H1L2. No. 9apEs argument is untena!le. #he Ci-il Code considers as immo-a!le
propert$ among others an$thing Fattached to an immo-a!le in a fi,ed manner in such
a wa$ that it cannot !e separated therefrom without !rea*ing the material or
deterioration of the o!"ect.F #he pump does not fit this description. )t could !e and was
in fact separated from 9apEs premises without !eing !ro*en or suffering deterioration.
7!-iousl$ the separation or remo-al of the pump in-ol-ed nothing more complicated
than the loosening of !olts or dismantling of other fasteners.
7
3a%6$4er' a4d 14g$4eer$4g S5pp$es, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-7057, "%tober 29, 195!, 97 ;6$. 70
,o4%ep%$o4, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner 0achiner$ and :ngineering ;upplies filed a complaint for reple-in for
the reco-er$ of the machiner$ and equipment sold and deli-ered to )po Limestone Co.
.n order was issued to seize and ta*e immediate possession of the properties specified
in the order. Cpon carr$ing out the court/s order 4oco the compan$/s President along
with a crew of technical men and la!ourers proceeded to the factor$. #he manager of
)po Limestone Co. and #orres protested against the seizure of the properties on the
ground that the$ are not personal properties. Howe-er since the sheriff contended that
his dut$ is purel$ ministerial the$ all went to the factor$ and dismantled the equipment
despite the fact that the equipment could not !e dismantled without causing damage or
in"uries to the wooden frames attached to them. Consequentl$ the$ had to cut some of
the supports of the equipment which rendered its use impractica!le.
/SS01. 8hether or not the machiner$ and equipment in question could !e the su!"ect
of reple-in.
H1L2. No. 4eple-in is applica!le onl$ to personal propert$. #he machiner$ and
equipment in question appeared to !e attached to the land particularl$ to the concrete
foundation of said premises in a fi,ed manner in such a wa$ that the former could not
!e separated from the latter without !rea*ing the material or deterioration of the o!"ect.
Hence in order to remo-e the said outfit it !ecame necessar$ not onl$ to un!olt the
same !ut also to cut some of its wooden supports. 0oreo-er said machiner$ and
equipment were intended !$ the owner of the tenement for an industr$ carried on said
immo-a!le. Bor these reasons the$ were alread$ immo-a!le pursuant to paragraphs 5
and & of .rticle D'& of the Ci-il Code.
*1LS 14erg', /4%. v. -6e ;rov$4%e o# )ata4gas
G.R. No. 178557, *ebr5ar' 17, 2007
,ae@o, Sr., (.
*+,-S. 7n 2anuar$ '8 '665 NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar :nerg$
)nc. o-er diesel engine power !arges moored at =ala$an =a$ in Calaca =atangas. #he
contract staes that NPC shall !e responsi!le for the pa$ment of all ta,es other le-ies
imposed go-ernment to which P7L.4 ma$ !e or !ecome su!"ect to in respect of the
Power =arges. ;u!sequentl$ Polar :nerg$ )nc. assigned its rights under the
agreement to B:L; :nerg$ )nc.
7n .ugust 7 '66& B:L; recei-ed an assessment of real propert$ ta,es on the power
!arges from Pro-incial .ssessor of =atangas Cit$. #he assessed ta, amounted to
P&+'8D%88.D% per annum. B:L; referred the matter to NPC reminding it of its
o!ligation under the agreement to pa$ all real estate ta,es. NPC sought reconsideration
8
of the Pro-incial .ssessor/s decision to assess real propert$ ta,es on the power !arges
alleging that !arges are non3ta,a!le items. )n its answer the Pro-incial .ssessor
a-erred that the !arges were real propert$ for purposes of ta,ation under ;ection '66?c@
of 4epu!lic .ct ?4...@ No. 7'+%.
/SS01. 8hether power !arges which are floating and mo-a!le are personal properties
and therefore not su!"ect to real propert$ ta,.
H1L2. N7. #he power !arges are real propert$ and are thus su!"ect to real propert$
ta,. #a, assessments !$ ta, e,aminers are presumed correct and made in good faith
with the ta,pa$er ha-ing the !urden of pro-ing otherwise.

=esides factual findings of
administrati-e !odies which ha-e acquired e,pertise in their field are generall$ !inding
and conclusi-e upon the Court.
6
La5re v. Gar%$a
G.R. No. 92013, (5' 25, 1990, 187 S,R+ 797
G5t$erre&, (.
*+,-S. )n -iew of the 4eparations .greement !etween the Philippines and 2apan four
properties located in 2apan were gi-en to the Philippines. 7ne of these properties is the
4oppongi propert$. #he said propert$ was formerl$ the location of the Chancer$ of the
Philippine :m!ass$ until it was transferred to Nampeidai on 2ul$ 22 '67+. #he
4oppongi propert$ has remained a!andoned from the time of the transfer due to lac* of
funds to de-elop the said propert$. Consequentl$ .dministrati-e orders were issued !$
the President authorizing the stud$ of the condition of the properties of the Philippines in
2apan. ;u!sequentl$ :,ecuti-e 7rder 26+ was issued !$ President .quino allowing
non3Bilipinos to !u$ or lease some of the properties of the Philippines located in 2apan
including 4oppongi.

Petitioners now contend that the 4oppongi propert$ cannot !e alienated as it is
classified as pu!lic dominion and not of pri-ate ownership !ecause it is a propert$
intended for pu!lic ser-ice under paragraph 2 article D2% of the Ci-il Code. 7n the
other hand respondents a-er that it has alread$ !ecome part of the patrimonial propert$
of the ;tate which can !e alienated !ecause it has not !een used for pu!lic ser-ice for
o-er '5 $ears. #he$ further contend that :7 26+ con-erted the su!"ect propert$ to
patrimonial propert$.
/SS01. 8hether or not the 4oppongi propert$ still forms part of the pu!lic dominion
hence cannot !e disposed nor alienated.
H1L2. 9es. #he respondents failed to con-incingl$ show that the propert$ has alread$
!ecome patrimonial. #he fact that the 4oppongi site has not !een used for a long time
for actual :m!ass$ ser-ice does not automaticall$ con-ert it to patrimonial propert$.
Cnder .rt. D22 of the Ci-il Code there must !e a definite and a formal declaration on
the part of the go-ernment to withdraw it from !eing pu!lic. .!andonment must !e a
certain and a positi-e act !ased on correct legal premises. #he mere transfer of the
em!ass$ to Nampeidai is not a relinquishment of the propert$/s original purpose.
#he .dministrati-e orders authorizing the stud$ of the conditions of go-ernment
properties in 2apan were merel$ directi-es for in-estigation !ut did not in an$ wa$
signif$ a clear intention to dispose of the properties. Li*ewise :7 26+ did not declare
that the properties lost their pu!lic character> it merel$ made them a-aila!le to
foreigners in case of sale lease or other disposition. #hus since there is no law
authorizing its con-e$ance the 4oppongi propert$ still remains part of the inaliena!le
properties of the ;tate.
Rab5%o v. V$egas
G.R. No. L-2!917, *ebr5ar' 28, 197!, 55 S,R+ 758
'%
-ee6a48ee, (.
*+,-S. #he issue in this case in-ol-es the constitutionalit$ of 4epu!lic .ct No. 5'2%
where!$ the Congress con-erted the lots in question together with another lot in ;an
.ndres 0alate that are reser-ed as communal propert$ into disposa!le or aliena!le
lands of the ;tate. ;uch lands are to !e placed under the administration and disposal of
the Land #enure .dministration for su!di-ision into small lots not e,ceeding '2% square
meters per lot for sale on instalment !asis to the tenants or !ona fide occupants thereof
and e,pressl$ prohi!ited e"ectment and demolition of petitionersE homes under ;ection 2
of the .ct. 4espondent contends that the .ct is in-alid and unconstitutional for it
constitutes depri-ation of propert$ without due process of law and without "ust
compensation.
/SS01. 8hether or not 4epu!lic .ct No. 5'2% is constitutional.
H1L2. 9es. #he lots in question are manifestl$ owned !$ the cit$ in its pu!lic and
go-ernmental capacit$ and are therefore pu!lic propert$ o-er which Congress had
a!solute control as distinguished from patrimonial propert$ owned !$ it in its pri-ate or
proprietar$ capacit$ of which it could not !e depri-ed without due process and without
"ust compensation. )t is esta!lished doctrine that the act of classif$ing ;tate propert$
calls for the e,ercise of wide discretionar$ legislati-e power which will not !e interfered
with !$ the courts. #he .cts in question were intended to implement the social "ustice
polic$ of the Constitution and the go-ernment program of land for the landless and that
the$ were not intended to e,propriate the propert$ in-ol-ed !ut merel$ to confirm its
character as communal land of the ;tate and to ma*e it a-aila!le for disposition !$ the
National Go-ernment. #he su!di-ision of the land and con-e$ance of the resulting
su!di-ision lots to the occupants !$ Congressional authorization does not operate as an
e,ercise of the power of eminent domain without "ust compensation in -iolation of
;ection ' su!section ?2@ .rticle ))) of the Constitution !ut simpl$ as a manifestation of
its right and power to deal with state propert$.
3a%as$a4o v. 2$o84o
G.R. No. 9777!, +5g5st 10, 1992, 212 S,R+ !7!
3ed$adea, (.
*+,-S. #he 0unicipalit$ of Paranque passed an ordinance that authorized the closure
of 2. Ga!riel G.G. Cruz =a$anihan Lt. Garcia :,tension and 7pena ;treets located at
=aclaran Paranaque 0etro 0anila and the esta!lishment of a flea mar*et thereon.
#hereafter the municipal council of Paranaque issued a resolution authorizing
Paranaque 0a$or 8alfrido N. Berrer to enter into a contract with an$ ser-ice
cooperati-e for the esta!lishment operation maintenance and management of flea
mar*ets andHor -ending areas. =$ -irtue of this respondent municipalit$ and respondent
Palan$ag a ser-ice cooperati-e entered into an agreement where!$ the latter shall
operate maintain and manage the flea mar*et in the aforementioned streets with the
''
o!ligation to remit dues to the treasur$ of the municipal go-ernment of Paranaque.
Consequentl$ mar*et stalls were put up !$ Palan$ag on the said streets.
Petitioner 0acasiano PNP ;uperintendent of the 0etropolitan #raffic Command then
ordered the destruction and confiscation of the stalls along the a!o-ementioned streets.
Hence respondents filed with the trial court a "oint petition for prohi!ition and
mandamus with damages and pra$er for preliminar$ in"unction to which the petitioner
filed his opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminar$ in"unction. #he trial court
upheld the -alidit$ of the ordinance in question.
/SS01. 8hether or not an ordinance or resolution which authorizes the lease and use
of pu!lic streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea mar*ets is -alid.
H1L2. No. #he aforementioned streets are local roads used for pu!lic ser-ice and are
therefore considered pu!lic properties of respondent municipalit$. .rticle D2D of the Ci-il
Code pro-ides that properties of pu!lic dominion de-oted for pu!lic use and made
a-aila!le to the pu!lic in general are outside the commerce of man and cannot !e
disposed of or leased !$ the local go-ernment unit to pri-ate persons. Properties of the
local go-ernment which are de-oted to pu!lic ser-ice are deemed pu!lic and are under
the a!solute control of Congress. Hence LGCs ha-e no authorit$ whatsoe-er to control
or regulate the use of pu!lic properties unless specific authorit$ is -ested upon them !$
Congress.
Rep5b$% o# t6e ;6$$pp$4es v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 100709, November 1!, 1997, 281 S,R+ 739
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. 0orato filed for a patent on a parcel of land located in Calauag Muezon which
was appro-ed pro-ided that the land shall not !e encum!ered or alienated within a
period of fi-e $ears from the date of the issuance of the patent. Later on the land was
esta!lished to !e a portion of Calauag =a$ which was fi-e to si, feet deep during high
tides and three feet deep on low tides. #he water le-el rose !ecause of the e!! and flow
of tides from the !a$ and the storms that frequentl$ passed through the area.
Burthermore it was o!ser-ed !$ the Airector of Lands from his in-estigation that the
land of 0orato was leased to .d-incula for P'%% per month and it was also mortgaged
to Co for P'%%%%. #he Airector of Lands filed a suit with the contention that 0orato
-iolated the &3$ear prohi!itor$ period and thus the patent should !e cancelled and the
land should re-ert !ac* to the ;tate.
/SS01. 8hether or not there is a -iolation of the prohi!ition of the patent and thus the
su!"ect land should re-ert !ac* to the ownership of the ;tate.
H1L2. 9es. #he lease was an encum!rance included in the prohi!itions of the patent
!ecause it impairs the use of the land !$ 0orato herself. .s for the mortgage it is a
'2
legal limit on the title and if there will !e foreclosure !ecause 0orato was not a!le to pa$
her de!ts the propert$ will !e auctioned. )t is also a limitation on 0oratoEs right to en"o$
and possess the land for herself. :ncum!rance as defined is an impairment on the use
or transfer of propert$ or a claim or lien on the propert$ where there is a !urden on the
title. #hus 0orato clearl$ -iolated the terms of the patent on these points. 0oreo-er the
propert$ !ecame a foreshore land !ecause it turned into a portion of land which was
co-ered most of the time with water whether it was low or high tide. Boreshore is
defined as land !etween high and low waters which is dr$ depending on the reflu, or
e!! of the tides. )n accordance with this land reclassification the land can no longer !e
su!"ect to a pending patent application and must !e returned to the ;tate.
;rov$4%e o# Aamboa4ga de Norte v. ,$t' o# Aamboa4ga
G.R. No. L-2!!!0, 3ar%6 28, 1978, 22 S,R+ 133!
)e4g&o4, (.;., (.
*+,-S. 7n 2une + '6&2 4epu!lic .ct 7'' was appro-ed di-iding the pro-ince of
Oam!oanga into two ?2@< Oam!oanga del Norte and Oam!oanga del ;ur. 4epu!lic .ct
5%56 was appro-ed pro-iding that Iall !uildings properties and assets !elonging to the
former pro-ince of Oam!oanga and located within the Cit$ of Oam!oanga are here!$
transferred free of charge in fa-or of the said Cit$ of Oam!oanga.J
Plaintiff3appellee Oam!oanga del Norte filed a complaint in the Court of Birst )nstance of
Oam!oanga del Norte against defendants3appellants Oam!oanga Cit$ the ;ecretar$ of
Binance and the Commissioner of )nternal 4e-enue. )t was pra$ed that 4epu!lic .ct
5%56 !e declared unconstitutional for depri-ing plaintiff pro-ince of propert$ without due
process and "ust compensation. )ncluded in the properties were the capital site and
capitol !uilding certain school sites hospital and leprosarium sites and high school
pla$ground.
/SS01. 8hether or not the properties mentioned are properties for pu!lic use or
patrimonial.
H1L2. #he su!"ect properties are properties for pu!lic use. #he -alidit$ of the law
ultimatel$ depends on the nature of the lots and !uildings in question. #he principle
itself is simple< )f the propert$ is owned !$ the municipalit$ ?meaning municipal
corporation@ in its pu!lic and go-ernmental capacit$ the propert$ is pu!lic and
Congress has absolute control o-er it. =ut if the propert$ is owned in its pri-ate or
proprietar$ capacit$ then it is patrimonial and Congress has no a!solute control. #he
municipalit$ cannot !e depri-ed of it without due process and pa$ment of "ust
compensation.
.ppl$ing the norm o!taining under the principles constituting the law of 0unicipal
Corporations all those of the &% properties in question which are de-oted to pu!lic
ser-ice are deemed pu!lic> the rest remain patrimonial. Cnder this norm to !e
'5
considered pu!lic it is enough that the propert$ !e held and de-oted for go-ernmental
purposes li*e local administration pu!lic education pu!lic health etc.
4egarding the se-eral !uildings e,isting on the lots a!o-e3mentioned the records do
not disclose whether the$ were constructed at the e,pense of the former Pro-ince of
Oam!oanga. Considering howe-er the fact that said !uildings must ha-e !een erected
e-en !efore '65+ when Commonwealth .ct 56 was enacted and the further fact that
pro-inces then had no power to authorize construction of !uildings such as those in the
case at !ar at their own expense, it can !e assumed that said !uildings were erected !$
the National Go-ernment using national funds. Hence Congress could -er$ well
dispose of said !uildings in the same manner that it did with the lots in question.
,6ave& v. ;5b$% 1states +5t6or$t'
G.R. No. 133250, (5' 9, 2002
,arp$o, (.
*+,-S. )n '675 the Go-ernment through the Commissioner of Pu!lic Highwa$s and
the Construction and Ae-elopment Corporation of the Philippines ?CACP@ signed a
contract to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of 0anila =a$. PA '%8D was
issued creating Pu!lic :states .uthorit$ ?P:.@ and PA '%8& transferring the
reclaimed lands under the 0CC44P to P:..
)n '66& P:. entered into a 2oint 1enture .greement ?21.@ with .0.4) a pri-ate
corporation to de-elop the Breedom )slands and the 21. was appro-ed !$ President
4amos. Howe-er P:. and .0.4) entered into the 21. through negotiation without
pu!lic !idding. . Legal #as* Borce was created to loo* into the issue. #he said tas*
force upheld the legalit$ of the 21..
)n '668 Bran* ). Cha-ez as a ta,pa$er filed a petition to compel P:. to disclose all
facts on its negotiations with .0.4) in-o*ing the constitutional right of the people to
information on matters of pu!lic concern. He assails the sale to .0.4) of lands of the
pu!lic domain as a !latant -iolation of the constitutional prohi!iting in the sale of
aliena!le lands of the pu!lic domain to pri-ate corporations.
Aespite the ongoing court petitions P:. and .0.4) signed an .mended 2oint 1enture
.greement ?.mended 21.@ in '666 and such was appro-ed !$ President :strada.
#he .mended 21. see*s to con-e$ to .0.4) the ownership of 77.5D hectares of the
Breedom )slands.
/SS01. 8hether .0.4) has the capacit$ to acquire the lands held !$ P:..
H1L2. No. Cnder the '687 Constitution pri-ate corporations such as .0.4) cannot
acquire aliena!le land of the pu!lic domain. 4eclaimed lands comprising the Breedom
)slands which are co-ered !$ certificates of title in the name of P:. are aliena!le
'D
lands of the pu!lic domain. P:. ma$ lease these lands to pri-ate corporations !ut ma$
not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to pri-ate corporations. P:. ma$ onl$ sell
these lands to Philippine citizens su!"ect to the ownership limitations in the '687
Constitution and e,isting laws. #hus the .mended 2oint 1enture .greement !etween
.0.4) and P:. was null and -oid.
,6ave& v. Nat$o4a Ho5s$4g +5t6or$t'
G.R. No. 17!527, +5g5st 15, 2007
Veas%o, (r., (.
*+,-S. President Corazon .quino issued 0emorandum 7rder No. '+' appro-ing and
directing the implementation of the Comprehensi-e and )ntegrated 0etropolitan 0anila
8aste 0anagement Plan. 4espondent National Housing .uthorit$ was ordered to
Iconduct feasi!ilit$ studies and de-elop lowPcost housing pro"ects at the dumpsite and
a!sor! sca-engers in NH. resettlementHlowPcost housing pro"ectsJ particularl$ in the
;mo*e$ 0ountain. )t produced the I;mo*e$ 0ountain Ae-elopment Plan and
4eclamation of the .rea .cross 43'%J or the ;mo*e 0ountain Ae-elopment and
4eclamation Pro"ect. #he Pro"ect aimed to co-ert ;mo*e$ mountain dumpsite into a
ha!ita!le housing pro"ect inclusi-e of the reclamation of the area. President .quino
appro-ed the said Pro"ect through 07 D'&. .fter President .quino/s term President
Bidel 4amos through Proclamation No. 56 authorized the NH. to enter into a 2oint
1enture .greement with 43)) =uilders )nc. ?4=)@ for the implementation of the pro"ect.
.fterwards President 4amos issued Proclamation No. D+& increasing the proposed
area for reclamation across 43'% from D% hectares to 76 hectares. #he petitioner
Brancisco Cha-ez contended that the respondent NH. or respondent 4=) has no
authorit$ to reclaim foreshore and su!merged land.
/SS01. 8hether or not respondent NH. has the authorit$ to reclaim foreshore and
su!merged land.
H1L2. 9es. #he National Housing .uthorit$ ?NH.@ is a go-ernment agenc$ not tas*ed
to dispose of pu!lic lands under its charter P it is an Iend3user agenc$J authorized !$
law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. #he moment titles o-er reclaimed
lands !ased on the special patents are transferred to the National Housing .uthorit$
?NH.@ !$ the 4egister of Aeeds the$ are automaticall$ con-erted to patrimonial
properties of the ;tate which can !e sold to Bilipino citizens and pri-ate corporations
+%( of which are owned !$ Bilipinos. #he com!ined and collecti-e effect of
Proclamations Nos. 56 and D+& with ;pecial Patents Nos. 5&62 and 5&68 is tantamount
to and can !e considered to !e an official declaration that the reclaimed lots are
aliena!le or disposa!le lands of the pu!lic domain. :-en if it is conceded that there was
no e,plicit declaration that the lands are no longer needed for pu!lic use or pu!lic
ser-ice there was howe-er an implicit e,ecuti-e declaration that the reclaimed areas
are not necessar$ an$more for pu!lic use or pu!lic ser-ice when President .quino
through 07 D'& con-e$ed the same to the National Housing .uthorit$ ?NH.@ partl$ for
'&
housing pro"ect and related commercialHindustrial de-elopment intended for disposition
to and en"o$ment of certain !eneficiaries and not the pu!lic in general and partl$ as
ena!ling component to finance the pro"ect.
3a4$a /4ter4at$o4a +$rport +5t6or$t' v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 155750, (5' 20, 2007
,arp$o, (.
*+,-S. 0).. recei-ed Binal Notices of 4eal :state #a, Aelinquenc$ from the Cit$ of
ParaNaque for the ta,a!le $ears '662 to 2%%'. 0)../s real estate ta, delinquenc$ was
estimated at P+2D million. #hus the Cit$ of ParaNaque through its Cit$ #reasurer
issued notices of le-$ and warrants of le-$ on the .irport Lands and =uildings. #he
0a$or of the Cit$ of ParaNaque threatened to sell at pu!lic auction the .irport Lands
and =uildings should 0).. fail to pa$ the real estate ta, delinquenc$. Cit$ of ParaNaque
contends that ;ection '65 of the Local Go-ernment Code e,pressl$ withdrew the ta,
e,emption pri-ileges of Igo-ernment3owned and3controlled corporationsJ upon the
effecti-it$ of the Local Go-ernment Code. Howe-er 0).. a-ers that airport lands and
!uildings are owned !$ the ;tate and thus e,empt from ta,.
/SS01. 8hether or not airport lands and !uildings of 0).. are e,empt from real estate
ta,.
H1L2. 9es. 0).. is a go-ernment instrumentalit$ -ested with corporate powers to
perform efficientl$ its go-ernmental functions. 0).. is li*e an$ other go-ernment
instrumentalit$ the onl$ difference is that 0).. is -ested with corporate powers. Cnless
the go-ernment instrumentalit$ is organized as a stoc* or non3stoc* corporation it
remains a go-ernment instrumentalit$ e,ercising not onl$ go-ernmental !ut also
corporate powers. #hus 0).. e,ercises the go-ernmental powers of eminent domain
police authorit$ and the le-$ing of fees and charges. #he airport lands and !uildings of
0).. are propert$ of pu!lic dominion and therefore owned !$ the ;tate or the 4epu!lic
of the Philippines. Hence the su!"ect properties are not su!"ect to ta,.
'+
(av$er v. Ver$d$a4o //
G.R. No. L-!8050, "%tober 10, 199!, 237 S,R+ 575
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. 2a-ier filed a 0iscellaneous ;ales .pplication for lot '+D'. ;he later instituted
a complaint for forci!le entr$ against =a!ol alleging that she was forci!l$ dispossessed
of a portion of said land. #he case for forci!l$ entr$ was howe-er dismissed as it was
found !$ the court that the occupied portion was outside Lot '+D'. #he same was
dismissed on appeal. 2a-ier was e-entuall$ granted a 0iscellaneous ;ales Patent and
issued an 7C# for lot '+D'. =a!ol howe-er had sold the propert$ he was occup$ing
including a portion of 2%% square meters to 4osete. 2a-ier demanded the surrender of
the same area from 4osete who repeatedl$ refused to compl$. .fter D $ears 2a-ier
instituted a complaint for quieting of title and reco-er$ of possession with damages
against =a!ol and 4osete. 4osete mo-ed to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res
judicata. #he CB) sustained the argument of 4osete and granted his motion to dismiss.
2a-ier contends that res judicata cannot appl$ in the instant case since there is no
identit$ of parties and causes of action !etween her complaint for forci!le entr$ which
had long !ecome final and e,ecutor$ and her su!sequent petition for quieting of title.
2a-ier maintains that there is no identit$ of causes of action since the first case was for
forci!le entr$ which is merel$ concerned with the possession of the propert$ whereas
the su!sequent case was for quieting of title which loo*s into the ownership of the
disputed land.
/SS01. 8hether or not there are reall$ different causes of action !etween the forci!le
entr$ case and the later quieting of title case.
H1L2. 9es. Bor res judicata to !ar the institution of a su!sequent action the following
requisites must concur< ?'@ #here must !e a final "udgment or order> ?2@ #he court
rendering the "udgment must ha-e "urisdiction o-er the su!"ect matter> ?5@ #he former
"udgment is a "udgment on the merits> and ?D@ #here is !etween the first and second
actions identit$ of ?Da@ parties ?D!@ of su!"ect matter and ?Dc@ of causes of action.
2a-ierEs argument that there is no identit$ of parties !etween the two actions is without
merit. 8e ha-e repeatedl$ ruled that for res judicata to appl$ what is required is not
a!solute !ut onl$ su!stantial identit$ of parties. =ut there is merit in 2a-ierEs argument
that there is no identit$ of causes of action.
F#he onl$ issue in an action for forci!le entr$ is the ph$sical or material possession of
real propert$ that is possession de facto and not possession de jure. #he philosoph$
underl$ing this remed$ is that irrespecti-e of the actual condition of the title to the
propert$ the part$ in peacea!le quiet possession shall not !e turned out !$ strong
hand -iolence or terror.F . "udgment rendered in a case for reco-er$ of possession is
conclusi-e onl$ on the question of possession and not on the ownership. )t does not in
an$ wa$ !ind the title or affects the ownership of the land or !uilding.
7n the other hand Ci-il Case No. 22%53% is in realit$ an action to reco-er a parcel of
land or an accion reivindicatoria under .rt. D5D of the Ci-il Code and should !e
'7
distinguished from Ci-il Case No. 62+ which is an accion interdictal. Accion interdictal
which is the summar$ action for forci!le entr$ ?detentacion@ where the defendantEs
possession of the propert$ is illegal ab initio or the summar$ action for unlawful
detainer ?desahuico@ where the defendantEs possession was originall$ lawful !ut ceased
to !e so !$ the e,piration of his right to possess !oth of which must !e !rought within
one $ear from the date of actual entr$ on the land in case of forci!le entr$ and from the
date of last demand in case of unlawful detainer in the proper municipal trial court or
metropolitan trial court> accion publiciana which is a plenar$ action for reco-er$ of the
right to possess and which should !e !rought in the proper regional trial court when the
dispossession has lasted for more than one $ear> and accion reivindicatoria or accion
de reivindicacion which see*s the reco-er$ of ownership and includes the jus utendi and
the jus fruendi !rought in the proper regional trial court.
Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is thus an action where!$ plaintiff
alleges ownership o-er a parcel of land and see*s reco-er$ of its full possession. )t is
different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merel$ alleges proof
of a !etter right to possess without claim of title.
)n Ci-il Case No. 62+ 2a-ier merel$ claimed a !etter right or prior possession o-er the
disputed area without asserting title thereto. )t should !e distinguished from Ci-il Case
No. 22%53% where she e,pressl$ alleged ownership.
)5stos v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 12078!-85, (a45ar' 2!, 2001, 350 S,R+ 155
;ardo, (.
*+,-S. Paulino Ba"ardo died intestate on .pril 2 '6&7. He had four ?D@ children
namel$< 0anuela #rinidad =eatriz and 0arcial all surnamed Ba"ardo. 7n ;eptem!er
5% '6+D the heirs e,ecuted an e,tra3"udicial partition of the estate of Paulino Ba"ardo.
7n the same date 0anuela sold her share to 0oses G. 0endoza hus!and of =eatriz
!$ deed of a!solute sale. .t the time of the sale there was no cadastral sur-e$ in
0asantol Pampanga. Later the cadastre was conducted and the propert$ in-ol-ed in
the partition case was specified as Lots 28% 285 28D '%%%3. and '%%%3=. #he share
of 0anuela which was sold to 0oses includes Lot 28D of the 0asantol Cadastre and
Lot 28D was su!di-ided into Lots 28D3. and 28D3=. #rinidad was in ph$sical possession
of the land. ;he refused to surrender the land to her !rother3in3law 0oses G. 0endoza
despite se-eral demands.
7n ;eptem!er 5 '67' 0oses filed with the Court of Birst )nstance Pampanga a
complaint for partition claiming the one fourth ?'HD@ share of 0anuela which was sold to
him. Auring the pendenc$ of the case for partition #rinidad Ba"ardo died. 7n Aecem!er
'& '68D the heirs e,ecuted an e,tra3"udicial partition of the estate of #rinidad Ba"ardo.
7n Be!ruar$ '+ '687 Lucio Ba"ardo )gnacio son of #rinidad sold Lot 28D3= to spouses
1enancio 1ira$ and Cecilia Nunga31ira$.
'8
7n Be!ruar$ 8 '686 the 4egional #rial Court Pampanga 0aca!e!e =ranch &&
rendered a decision in fa-or of 0oses G. 0endoza.)n the meantime on No-em!er +
'686 spouses 1enancio 1ira$ and Cecilia Nunga31ira$ !u$ers of Lucio )gnacioEs share
of the propert$ filed with the 0unicipal Circuit #rial Court 0aca!e!e30asantol
Pampanga an action for unlawful detainer against spouses =ustos the !u$ers of 0oses
G. 0endoza who were in actual possession as lessees of the hus!and of #rinidad
Brancisco )gnacio of the su!"ect land. #he municipal circuit trial court decided the case
in fa-or of spouses 1ira$. ;u!sequentl$ the trial court issued writs of e,ecution and
demolition !ut sta$ed when spouses =ustos filed with the regional #rial Court
Pampanga 0aca!e!e =ranch &&

a petition for certiorari prohi!ition and in"unction. 7n
Aecem!er '8 '662 the regional trial court rendered a decision dismissing the case. 7n
;eptem!er 6 '66D petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration> howe-er on 2une 2'
'66& the Court of .ppeals denied the motion.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioners could !e e"ected from what is now their own land.
H1L2. )n this case the issue of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership.
)n the unlawful detainer case the Court of .ppeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court as to possession on the ground that the decision has !ecome final and e,ecutor$.
#his means that the petitioners ma$ !e e-icted. )n the accion reinvindicatoria, the Court
of .ppeals affirmed the ownership of petitioners o-er the su!"ect land. Hence the court
declared petitioners as the lawful owners of the land. )n the present case the sta$ of
e,ecution is warranted !$ the fact that petitioners are now legal owners of the land in
question and are occupants thereof. #o e,ecute the "udgment !$ e"ecting petitioners
from the land that the$ owned would certainl$ result in gra-e in"ustice. =esides the
issue of possession was rendered moot when the court ad"udicated ownership to the
spouses =ustos !$ -irtue of a -alid deed of sale. Placing petitioners in possession of the
land in question is the necessar$ and logical consequence of the decision declaring
them as the rightful owners is possession. )t follows that as owners of the su!"ect
propert$ petitioners are entitled to possession of the same. F.n owner who cannot
e,ercise the se-en ?7@ Fjuses" or attri!utes of ownership3the right to possess to use and
en"o$ to a!use or consume to accessories to dispose or alienate to reco-er or
-indicate and to the fruits is a crippled owner.
He$rs o# Roma4 Sor$a4o v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 128177, +5g5st 15, 2001, 373 S,R+ 87
>4ares B Sa4t$ago, (.
*+,-S. #he land in dispute in this case is originall$ owned !$ .driano ;oriano who
died sometime in '6D7. .driano ;oriano has 7 heirs whom leased the su!"ect parcel of
land to Aa-id de 1era and Consuelo 1illasista for a term of '& $ears starting 2ul$ '
'6+7. #he lease contract states that 4oman ;oriano will ser-e as the careta*er of the
said propert$ during the period of lease. Auring the effecti-it$ of the lease contract the
'6
heirs of .driano ;oriano entered into e,tra"udicial settlement of his estate. .s a result of
the settlement the propert$ was di-ided into two propert$ Lot No. +%%&2 which was
assigned to Lourdes and Candido heirs of .driano and the heirs of Aionisia another
heir of .driano. #he other propert$ Lot No. 8D&6 was assigned to Brancisco Li!rada
:lcociado and 4oman all heirs of .driano. #he owners of Lot No. +%%&2 sold the lot to
spouses =raulio and .quiliana .!alos and the owners of Lot No. 8D&6 e,cept 4oman
also sold their shares to spouses =riones.
7n 0arch 'D '6+8 the de 1era spouses ousted 4oman as careta*er and appointed
)sidro 1ersoza and 1idal 1ersoza as his su!stitute. 4oman filed a case for
reinstatement and reliquidation against the de 1era spouses in C.4 Case No. '72D3P3
+8. 7n ;eptem!er 5% '6+6 the .grarian Court rendered a decision authorizing the
e"ectment of 4oman. 7n appeal the decision was re-ersed !$ the Court of .ppeals.
#he deicion !ecame final and e,ecutor. Howe-er !efore it was e,ecuted the parties
entered into a post3decisional agreement wherein the de 1era spouses allowed 4oman
;oriano to su!3lease the propert$ until the termination of the original lease on 2une 5%
'682. #his agreement was appro-ed !$ the C.4 court in an order dated Aecem!er 22
'672.
7n .ugust '+ '67+ the .!alos spouses applied for the registration of the disputed
parcel of land. 4oman ;oriano and the Airector of Lands acted as oppositors. 7n 2une
27 '685 the Land 4egistration Court granted the application for registration. 7n .pril
'5 '685 after the e,piration of the original lease and su!3lease in fa-or of 4oman
;oriano the .!alos spouses filed a case for unlawful detainer against 4oman ;oriano
later this case was dismissed on motion of the .!alos spouses. 7n 2ul$ 'D '685
:lcociado Li!rada 4oman Brancisco Lourdes Candido and the heirs of Aionisia filed
a complaint to annul the deeds of sale the$ e,ecuted in fa-or of the .!alos spouses or
should the deeds !e not annulled to allow 4oman :lcociado and Li!rada to redeem
their shares in the disputed land and to uphold 4oman ;oriano/s possession of the
fishpond portion of the propert$ as a tenant3careta*er.
.fter the dismissal of the case for unlawful detainer the .!alos spouses filed on .ugust
22 '68D a motion for e,ecution of the post3decisional order em!od$ing the agreement
of 4oman ;oriano and the de 1era spouses allowing the former to su!lease the
propert$. 7n 7cto!er 2& '68D 4oman filed a motion to suspend hearing on the rental
demanded !$ the .!alos spouses until after the other issues raised in his opposition to
the motion for e,ecution are resol-ed. #he motion to suspend hearing on the issue of
the rentals was denied and the trial court authorized the su!stitution of the de 1era
spouses !$ the .!alos spouses. 4oman ;orianoEs motion for reconsideration was
denied on 0arch '+ '68&. 4oman filed petition for certiorari and prohi!ition in the Court
of .ppeals !ut the latter denied the petition pending the denial of this petition 4oman
;oriano died. Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of .ppeals the heirs of 4oman
;oriano !rought this case in the ;upreme Court.
2%
/SS01. 8hether or not a winning part$ ?.=.L7;@ in a land registration case can
effecti-el$ e"ect the possessor ?;74).N7@ thereof whose securit$ of tenure rights is
still pending determination !efore the A.4.=.
H1L2. No. #he Court held that a "udgment in a land registration case cannot effecti-el$
used to oust the possessor of the land whose securit$ of tenure rights are still pending
determination !efore the A.4.=. #here is no dispute that .!alos spousesE title o-er the
land under litigation has !een confirmed with finalit$. Howe-er the declaration pertains
onl$ to ownership and does not automaticall$ include possession especiall$ soin the
instant case where there is a third part$ occup$ing the said parcel of land allegedl$ in
the concept of an agricultural tenant. .gricultural lessees are entitled to securit$ of
tenure and the$ ha-e the right to wor* on their respecti-e landholdings once the
leasehold relationship is esta!lished. ;ecurit$ of tenure is a legal concession to
agricultural lessees which the$ -alue as life itself ad depri-ation of their landholdings is
tantamount to depri-ation of their onl$ means of li-elihood. #he e,ercise of the right of
ownership then $ields to the e,ercise of the rights of an agricultural tenant. #he
;upreme Court decided to refrain from ruling whether petitioners ma$ !e dispossessed
of the su!"ect propert$ while petitionerEs status as tenant has not $et !een declared !$
the A.4.=.
Gar%$a v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 1331!0, +5g5st 10, 1999, 312 S,R+ 180
;54o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner .tt$. Pedro Garcia with the consent of his wife 4emedios Garcia
sold a parcel of land situated at =el .ir )) 1illage 0a*ati to his daughter 0aria Luisa
0agpa$o and her hus!and Luisito 0agpa$o. #he 0agpa$os mortgaged the land to the
Philippine =an* of Communications ?P=Com@ to secure a loan. #he 0agpa$os failed to
pa$ their loan upon its maturit$ hence the mortgage was e,tra"udiciall$ foreclosed and
at the pu!lic auction sale in which P=Com !ought the land. #he redemption period of
the foreclosed mortgage e,pired without the 0agpa$os redeeming the same hence
title o-er the land was consolidated in fa-or of P=Com.
P=Com su!sequentl$ filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession o-er the
land with the 4egional #rial Court ?4#C@ of 0a*ati. #he 4#C granted the petition. Cpon
ser-ice of the writ of possession 0aria Luisa 0agpa$o/s !rother 2ose 0a. #. Garcia
who was in possession of the land refused to honor it. 2ose Garcia thereupon filed
against P=Com the 0agpa$os and the 4#C ;heriff the instant suit for reco-er$ of
realt$ and damages wherein he contended inter alia that at the time of the alleged sale
to the 0agpa$o spouses he was in possession of the propert$> that when his mother
4emedios #a!lan Garcia died sometime in 7cto!er '68% he !ecame !$ operation of
law a co3owner of the propert$> and that .tt$. Pedro 1. Garcia at the time of the
e,ecution of the instrument in fa-or of the 0agpa$o spouses was not in possession of
the su!"ect propert$.
2'
/SS01. 8hether or not 2ose 0agpa$o was a co3owner of the parcel of the land in
dispute.
H1L2. No. Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. 7wnership e,ists
when a thing pertaining to one person is completel$ su!"ected to his will in a manner not
prohi!ited !$ law and consistent with the rights of others. 7wnership confers certain
rights to the owner one of which is the right to dispose of the thing !$ wa$ of sale. .tt$.
Pedro Garcia and his wife 4emedios e,ercised their right to dispose of what the$ owned
when the$ sold the su!"ect propert$ to the 0agpa$o spouses. 7n the other hand
possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the en"o$ment of a right. Literall$ to
possess means to actuall$ and ph$sicall$ occup$ a thing with or without right.
Possession ma$ !e had in one of two wa$s< possession in the concept of an owner and
possession of a holder. I. possessor in the concept of an owner ma$ !e the owner
himself or one who claims to !e so.J 7n the other hand Ione who possesses as a mere
holder ac*nowledges in another a superior right which he !elie-es to !e ownership
whether his !elief !e right or wrong.J #he records show that petitioner 2ose Garcia
occupied the propert$ not in the concept of an owner for his sta$ was merel$ tolerated
!$ his parents. .n owner/s act of allowing another to occup$ his house rent3free does
not create a permanent and indefeasi!le right of possession in the latter/s fa-or.
Consequentl$ it is of no moment that petitioner was in possession of the propert$ at the
time of the sale to the 0agpa$o spouses. )t was not a hindrance to a -alid transfer of
ownership. .ll said the 0agpa$o spouses were alread$ the owners when the$
mortgaged the propert$ to P=Com.
Rod$ 14terpr$ses, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 129709, November 29, 2001, 371 S,R+ 79
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. 4odil :nterprises )nc. ?47A)L@ is the lessee of the )des 7E4acca =uilding
?7E4.CC.@ since '6&6 which is a propert$ owned !$ the 4epu!lic of the Philippines. )n
'68% 4odil entered into a su!lease contract with respondents Carmen =ondoc
#eresita =ondoc3:sto Ai-isoria Bootwear and Chua Hua$ ;oon mem!ers of the )des
7/4acca =uilding #enants .ssociation )nc. 7n '2 ;eptem!er '682 =P 255 was
enacted. )t authorized the sale of Fformer alien propertiesF classified as commercial and
industrial and the 7E4.CC. !uilding was classified as commercial propert$. 47A)L
and )des 7/4acca =uilding #enants .ssociation )nc., offered to purchase the su!"ect
propert$. Pending action on the offer of 47A)L to purchase the propert$ Airector
Bactora of the =uilding ;er-ices and 4eal Propert$ 0anagement 7ffice granted
47A)LEs request for another renewal of the lease contract on 25 ;eptem!er '687 for
another fi-e ?&@ $ears from ' ;eptem!er '687. #he renewal contract was forwarded to
then ;ecretar$ 2ose de 2esus of Department of General Services and Real state
!ropert" #ana$ement ?AG;4:P0@ for appro-al. Cpon recommendation of AG;4:P0
4ufino =anas Ae 2esus disappro-ed the renewal contract in fa-our of 4odil and
22
recalled all papers signed !$ him regarding the su!"ect. ;ecretar$ Ae 2esus li*ewise
directed 47A)L to pa$ its realt$ ta, delinquenc$ and ordered the issuance of a
temporar$ occupanc$ permit to the .;;7C).#)7N.
7n + 7cto!er '687 47A)L filed an action for specific performance damages and
in"unction with pra$er for temporar$ restraining order !efore the 4egional #rial Court of
0anila against the 4:PC=L)C Ae 2esus =anas Bactora and the .;;7C).#)7N. Ae
2esus =anas and Bactora were later su!stituted !$ ;ecretar$ Bulgencio Bactoran of the
Aepartment of :n-ironment and Natural 4esources ?A:N4@ in the action for specific
performance. 7n 5' 0a$ '688 Bactora issued 7rder No. ' designating the Land
0anagement =ureau represented !$ Airector .!elardo Palad 2r. as custodian of all
Fformer alien propertiesF owned !$ the 4:PC=L)C. Pending the action for specific
performance 47A)L signed a renewal contract with Airector Palad which was appro-ed
!$ ;ecretar$ Bactora. #he renewal contract would e,tend the lease for ten ?'%@ $ears
from ' ;eptem!er '687. . supplement to the renewal contract was su!sequentl$
entered into on 2& 0a$ '662 where rentals on the pre-ious lease contract were
increased. .s a result the action was dismissed in fa-our of 4odil. 4odil then filed an
action for unlawful detainer against Ai-isoria Bootwear =ondoc =ondoc3:sto and Chua
Hua$ ;oon. Cpon appeal the Court of .ppeals declared the contracts null and -oid and
dismissed the actions for unlawful detainer.
/SS01. 8hether or not 4odil has the right to occup$ the !uilding !$ -irtue of its lease
contract with the 4epu!lic.
H1L2. 9es. #he owner has the right to en"o$ and dispose of a thing without other
limitations than those esta!lished !$ law. :-er$ owner has the freedom of disposition
o-er his propert$. )t is an attri!ute of ownership and this rule has no e,ception. #he
4:PC=L)C !eing the owner of the disputed propert$ en"o$s the prerogati-e to enter into
a lease contract with 47A)L in the e,ercise of its jus disponendi. Hence as lessor the
4:PC=L)C has the right to e"ect usurpers of the leased propert$ where the factual
elements required for relief in an action for unlawful detainer are present.
Pri-ate respondents claim that the agreements of 25 ;eptem!er '687 '8 0a$ '662
and 2& 0a$ '662 did not gi-e rise to -alid contracts.#his is true onl$ of the Contract of
%ease entered into on 25 ;eptem!er '687 which the 4:PC=L)C did not appro-e.
47A)L neither alleged nor pro-ed that such appro-al was made *nown to it. #he so3
called appro-al of the lease contract was merel$ stated in an internal memorandum of
;ecretar$ Ae 2esus addressed to Airector Bactora. #his is e-ident from the fact that
;ecretar$ Ae 2esus in his letter as*ed Bactora to dul$ e,ecute a lease contract and
forward it to his office for appro-al. #he consequences of this fact are clear. #he Ci-il
Code pro-ides that no contract shall arise unless acceptance of the contract is
communicated to the offeror.

Cntil that moment there is no real meeting of the minds
no concurrence of offer and acceptance hence no contract.
Howe-er the same is not true of the contracts of '8 0a$ '662 and 2& 0a$ '662. .s
argued !$ 47A)L these contracts are not proscri!ed !$ law> neither is there a law
25
prohi!iting the e,ecution of a contract with pro-isions that are retroacti-e. 8here there
is nothing in a contract that is contrar$ to law morals good customs pu!lic polic$ or
pu!lic order the -alidit$ of the contract must !e sustained.
#he Court of .ppeals in-alidated the contracts !ecause the$ were supposedl$ e,ecuted
in -iolation of a temporar$ restraining order issued !$ the 4egional #rial Court.

#he
appellate court howe-er failed to note that the order restrains the 4:PC=L)C from
awarding the lease contract onl$ as regards respondent .;;7C).#)7N !ut not
petitioner 47A)L. 8hile a temporar$ restraining order was indeed issued against
47A)L it was issued onl$ on 2& 0a$ '662 or after the assailed contracts were entered
into. .s correctl$ stated !$ petitioner one cannot en"oin an act alread$ fait accompli.
Pri-ate respondents argue that the Frenewal contractF cannot FrenewF a -oid contract.
Howe-er the$ could cite no legal !asis for this assertion. )t would seem that
respondents consider the renewal contract to !e a no-ation of the earlier lease contract
of 25 ;eptem!er '687. Howe-er no-ation is ne-er presumed. .lso the title of a
contract does not determine its nature. 7n the contrar$ it is the specific pro-isions of
the contract which dictate its nature. Burthermore where a contract is suscepti!le of two
?2@ interpretations one that would ma*e it -alid and another that would ma*e it in-alid
the latter interpretation is to !e adopted. #he assailed agreement of '8 0a$ '662
F4enewal of Contract of LeaseF merel$ states that the term of the contract would !e for
ten ?'%@ $ears starting ' ;eptem!er '687. #his is hardl$ conclusi-e of the e,istence of
an intention !$ the parties to no-ate the contract of 25 ;eptem!er '687. Nor can it !e
argued that there is an implied no-ation for the requisite incompati!ilit$ !etween the
original contract and the su!sequent one is not present. =ased on this factual milieu
the presumption of -alidit$ of contract cannot !e said to ha-e !een o-erturned.
4espondent .;;7C).#)7N claims that the Aecision of the 7ffice of the President
declaring null and -oid the lease contracts of '8 0a$ '662 and 2& 0a$ '662 should !e
counted in its fa-or. 8e do not agree. #he contention does not hold water. )t is well3
settled that a courtEs "udgment in a case shall not ad-ersel$ affect persons who were not
parties thereto.
/sag5$rre v. 2e Lara
G.R. No. 138053, 3a' 31, 2000, 332 S,R+ 803
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. .le"andro de Lara was the original applicant3claimant for a 0iscellaneous
;ales .pplication o-er a parcel of land with an area of 25D2 square meters. Cpon his
death .le"andro de Lara was succeeded !$ his wife3respondent Belicitas de Lara as
claimant. 7n this lot stands a two3stor$ residential3commercial apartment declared for
ta,ation purposes in the name of respondent/s sons .polonio and 4odolfo de Lara.
8hen Belicitas encountered financial difficulties she approached petitioner Cornelio 0.
)saguirre. 7n Be!ruar$ '% '6+% a document denominated as IAeed of ;ale and
;pecial Cession of 4ights and )nterestsJ was e,ecuted !$ Belicitas and )saguirre
2D
where!$ the former sold a 2&% square meter portion of the su!"ect lot together with the
two3stor$ commercial and residential structure standing thereon. ;ometime in 0a$
'6+6 .polonio and 4odolfo de Lara filed a complaint against petitioner for reco-er$ of
ownership and possession of the two3stor$ !uilding. Howe-er petitioner filed a sales
application o-er the su!"ect propert$ and was issued an 7C#. Aue to o-erlapping of
title petitioner filed an action for quieting of title. 2udgment was rendered in fa-or of the
respondents. 8hen respondent filed a motion for e,ecution petitioner opposed and
alleged that he had a right of retention o-er the propert$ until pa$ment of the -alue of
the impro-ements he had introduced on the propert$.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner can !e considered a !uilder in good faith with respect
to the impro-ements he made on the propert$.
H1L2. No. #he petitioner is a possessor in !ad faith. =ased on the factual findings from
this case it is e-ident that petitioner *new from the -er$ !eginning that there was reall$
no sale and that he held respondent/s propert$ as mere securit$ for the pa$ment of the
loan o!ligation. #herefore petitioner ma$ claim reim!ursement onl$ for necessar$
e,penses> howe-er he is not entitled to reim!ursement for an$ useful e,penses which
he ma$ ha-e incurred.
2&
Germa4 3a4ageme4t C Serv$%es, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 77217 a4d 77217, September 1!, 1989, 177 S,R+ !95
*er4a4, (.
*+,-S. ;pouses C$nthia Cu$eg*eng 2ose and 0anuel 4ene 2ose residents of
Penns$l-ania Philadelphia C;. are the owners of a parcel of land situated in ;itio
)narawan ;an )sidro .ntipolo 4izal with an area of 2526D2 sq. 0. #he land was
originall$ registered on & .ugust '6D8 in the 7ffice of the 4egister of Aeeds 4izal as
7C# '6 pursuant to a Homestead Patent granted !$ the President of the Philippines on
27 2ul$ '6D8. 7n 2+ Be!ruar$ '682 the spouses 2ose e,ecuted a special power of
attorne$ authorizing German 0anagement ;er-ices to de-elop their propert$ into a
residential su!di-ision. Consequentl$ the German 0anagement o!tained Ae-elopment
Permit %%D2D from the Human ;ettlements 4egulator$ Commission for said
de-elopment. Binding that part of the propert$ was occupied !$ Gernale and 1illeza and
2% other persons German 0anagement ad-ised the occupants to -acate the premises
!ut the latter refused. Ne-ertheless German 0anagement proceeded with the
de-elopment of the su!"ect propert$ which included the portions occupied and culti-ated
!$ Gernale et.al. Gernale et.al. filed an action for forci!le entr$ against German
0anagement !efore the 0#C .ntipolo 4izal alleging that the$ are mountainside
farmers of ;itio )narawan who ha-e occupied and tilled their farmholdings some '2 to
'& $ears prior to the promulgation of PA 27 and that the$ were depri-ed of their
propert$ without due process of law when German 0anagement forci!l$ remo-ed and
destro$ed the !ar!ed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice and
!ulldozing the rice corn fruit !earing trees and other crops that the$ planted !$ means
of force -iolence and intimidation #he 0#C dismissed Gernale et.al.Es complaint for
forci!le entr$. 7n appeal the 4#C sustained the dismissal !$ the 0#C. Gernale then
filed a petition for re-iew with the Court of .ppeals. ;aid court ga-e due course to their
petition and re-ersed the decisions of the 0#C and the 4#C. #he .ppellate Court held
that since Gernale et.al. were in actual possession of the propert$ at the time the$ were
forci!l$ e"ected !$ German 0anagement the$ ha-e a right to commence an action for
forci!le entr$ regardless of the legalit$ or illegalit$ of possession. German 0anagement
mo-ed to reconsider !ut the same was denied !$ the .ppellate Court. Hence here is
the present recourse.
/SS01. 8hether the doctrine of self3help ma$ !e a-ailed of when respondents refused
to -acate the premises.
H1L2. No. #he "ustification that the drastic action of !ulldozing and destro$ing the
crops of the prior possessor on the !asis of the doctrine of self help ?enunciated in
.rticle D26 NCC@ is una-ailing !ecause the such doctrine can onl$ !e e,ercised at the
time of actual or threatened dispossession which is a!sent in the present case. 8hen
possession has alread$ !een lost the owner must resort to "udicial process for the
reco-er$ of propert$. #his is clear from .rticle &5+ New Ci-il Code which pro-ides that
Fin no case ma$ possession !e acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is
a possessor who o!"ects thereto. He who !elie-es that he has an action or right to
2+
depri-e another of the holding of a thing must in-o*e the aid of the competent court if
the holder should refuse to deli-er the thing.F
,a$s$p v. ;eope o# t6e ;6$$pp$4es
G.R. No. L-28717, November 18, 1970, 37 S,R+ 17
,o4%ep%$o4, ,. (.
*+,-S. ;pouses 0arcelino Gue-arra and Gloria Ca!alag culti-ated a parcel of land
*nown as Lot '%&3. of Hacienda Palico situated in Nasug!u =atangas the same land
used to !e tenanted !$ Ca!alag/s father when he was still ali-e. Hacienda Palico is
owned !$ 4o,as $ Cia administered !$ .ntonio Chuidian and super-ised !$ the
o-erseer Beli, Caisip. Prior to the incident in-ol-ed Gue-arra sought recognition as a
lawful tenant of 4o$as $ Cia from the Court of .grarian 4elations !ut his action was
dismissed. #hereafter 4o,as $ Cia filed an action against Gue-arra for forci!le entr$
with pra$er that Gue-arra !e e"ected from the premises of Lot '%&3.. #he 2ustice of the
Peace of Court of Nasug!u decided in fa-or of 4o,as $ Cia and on 2une + '6&6 a
trou!le !etween Ca!alag and Caisip occurred regarding the cutting of sugarcane.
. da$ later Ca!alag entered again the premises of Lot '%&3. and refused to !e dri-en
out !$ Caisip. Aue to Ca!alag/s tenacious attitude Caisip sought the help of the Chief
of Police of Nasug!u. #he Aeput$ ;heriff howe-er informed Caisip that his request to
e"ect Ca!alag cannot !e acted upon without a proper court order. Ne-ertheless the
Chief of Police assigned ;ergeant )gnacio 4o"ales and Corporal Brederico 1illadelre$ to
Haciendo Palico. 7n 2une '7 '6&6 Ca!alag was seen weeding a portion of Lot '%&3.
which was a ricefield. Caisip approached her and !ade her to lea-e !ut she refused to
do so. ;o Caisip went to ;gt. 4o"ales and Cpl. 1illadelre$ and !rought them to
Ca!alag. 4o"ales told Ca!alag to stop weeding !ut she insisted on her right to sta$ in
the said lot. 8hile in squatting position Ca!alag was gra!!ed !$ 4o"ales who twisted
her right arm and wrested the trowel she was holding. 1illadelre$ held her left hand and
together 4o"ales forci!l$ dragged her towards a !anana plantation while Caisip stood
near!$ with a drawn gun. Ca!alag shouted I)na *o poQ )na *o poQJ and was heard !$
some neigh!ors. Ooilo 4i-era head of the tenant organization to which Ca!alag was
affiliated went with them on their wa$ to the municipal !uilding. Cpon arri-al Ca!alag
was turned o-er !$ 4o"ales and 1illadelre$ to the policemen on dut$ who interrogated
her. =ut upon representations made !$ 4i-era she was released and allowed to go
home. Ca!agan then filed a complaint charging Caisip 4o"ales and 1illadelre$ of the
crime of Igra-e coercion.J
#he Court of Birst )nstance of =atangas found them guilt$ as charged. 7n appeal #he
Court of .ppeals affirmed the trial court/s decision.
/SS01. 8hether or not the force emplo$ed !$ Caisip and others in the e,ercise of his
right granted !$ .rticle D26 is reasona!l$ necessar$ to repel or pre-ent an actual or
threatened unlawful ph$sical in-asion or usurpation of his propert$.
27
H1L2. No. Caisip was not e-en entitled to the right granted !$ .rticle D26. #his is totall$
inapplica!le to the case for ha-ing !een gi-en 2% da$s from 2une +th within which to
-acate the lot Ca!alag did not on 2une '7th and within said period in-ades or usurps
the said lot. ;he had merel$ remained in possession thereof e-en though the hacienda
owner ma$ ha-e !ecome its co3possessor !$ reason of the prior order of the 2ustice of
Peace Court of Nasug!u. Caisip and others did not repel or pre-ent an actual or
threatened ph$sical in-asion or usurpation. #he$ e,pelled Ca!alag from a propert$
which she and her hus!and were in possession despite the fact that the ;heriff had
e,plicitl$ authorized Gue-arra and Ca!alag to sta$ in said propert$ up to 2une 2+th and
had e,pressed the -iew that he could not oust them without a "udicial order. )t is clear
therefore that Caisip 4o"ales and 1illadelre$ !$ means of -iolence and without legal
authorit$ had pre-ented the complainant from doing something not prohi!ited !$ law
?weeding and !eing in Lot '%&3.@ and compelled her to do something against her will
?stopping the weeding and lea-ing said lot@ whether it !e right or wrong there!$ ta*ing
the law into their hands in -iolation of .rticle 28+ of the 4e-ised Penal Code.
;eope o# t6e ;6$$pp$4es v. ;et%6a
G.R. No. 19029-,R, (54e 27, 1977, 22 ,+ Rep. 807
S$so4, (.
*+,-S. #ito Pletcha 2r. farmer in-o*ing Rself3help/ in defense of the land he inherited
from his father '6 $ears ago against the wor*ers of 4adeco Corporation who without
court order were constructing a fence in a hacienda allegedl$ leased !$ the corporation
from a certain Lopinco.
Claiming actual possession and ownership and !elie-ing that the land sought to !e
fenced was an integral part of the land he inherited Pletcha as*ed the group to desist
from fenicing pending a resur-e$ he proposed !ut he was totall$ ignored thus he
fought off and pre-ented the wor*ers. .s a result of such resistance he was prosecuted
and con-icted of gra-e coercion !$ the 0unicipal #rial Court. Pletcha appealed the
decision of the 0#C with the Court of .ppeals.
/SS01. 8hether the appellant/s action is a legitimate e,ercise of a pri-ate citizen/s Rself3
help.
H1L2. 9es. )n the instant casethe usurper/s possession has not $et !ecome complete
and the complainants were in the act of !uilding a fence. ;uch an act constitutes force
in contemplation of the law. #his act of trespass "ustified the appellant to dri-e them
awa$ e-en !$ means of !olo !ecause the$ refused to listen to his appeal which is
reasona!le. #he appellant need not rush to the court to see* redress !efore reasona!l$
resisting the in-asion of his propert$. #he situation required immediate action and .rt.
D26 ga-e him the self e,ecutor$ mechanics of self3defense and self3reliance. #he
pro-ision in .rt D26 of the New Ci-il Code confirms the right of the appellant an owner
28
and lawful possessor to use reasona!le force to repel an in-asion or usurpation actual
threatened or ph$sical of his propert$. #he principle of self3defense and the protecti-e
measures related thereto co-ers not onl$ his life !ut also his li!ert$ and propert$.
I#he principle of self3help authorizes the lawful possessor to use force not onl$ to
pre-ent a threatened unlawful in-asion or usurpation thereof> it is a sort of self3defense.
)t is lawful to repel force !$ force. He who merel$ uses force to defend his possession
does not possess !$ force. #he use of such necessar$ force to protect propriet$ or
possessor$ rights constitutes a "ustif$ing circumstance under the Penal Code.J
26
+4damo v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 7!771, November 7, 1990, 191 S,R+ 195
*er4a4, ,.(.
*+,-S. Petitioner spouses :mmanuel and Nati-idad .ndamo are the owners of a
parcel of land situated in =iga ?=iluso@ ;ilang Ca-ite which is ad"acent to that of pri-ate
respondent 0issionaries of 7ur Lad$ of La ;alette )nc. a religious corporation. 8ithin
the land of respondent corporation waterpaths and contri-ances including an artificial
la*e were constructed which allegedl$ inundated and eroded petitionersE land caused
a $oung man to drown damaged petitionersE crops and plants washed awa$ costl$
fences endangered the li-es of petitioners and their la!orers during rain$ and storm$
seasons and e,posed plants and other impro-ements to destruction.
Petitioners instituted a criminal action against the officers and directors of respondent
corporation for destruction !$ means of inundation under .rticle 52D of the 4e-ised
Penal Code. ;u!sequentl$ petitioners filed a ci-il action against respondent corporation
for damages. #he trial court dismissed the ci-il case for lac* of "urisdiction as the
criminal case which was instituted ahead of the ci-il case was still unresol-ed. #he
appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. #he motion for reconsideration was
also denied.
/SS01. 8hether a corporation which has !uilt through its agents waterpaths water
conductors and contri-ances within its land there!$ causing inundation and damage to
an ad"acent land can !e held ci-ill$ lia!le for damages.
H1L2. 9es. PetitionersE complaint sufficientl$ alleges that petitioners ha-e sustained
and will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contri-ances !uilt !$
respondent corporation. )t must !e stressed that the use of oneEs propert$ is not without
limitations. .rticle D5' of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that Fthe owner of a thing cannot ma*e
use thereof in such a manner as to in"ure the rights of a third person.F ;)C C#:4: #C7
C# .L):NC0 N7N L.:A.;. 0oreo-er ad"oining landowners ha-e mutual and
reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasona!le manner
so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others. .lthough we recognize the
right of an owner to !uild structures on his land such structures must !e so constructed
and maintained using all reasona!le care so that the$ cannot !e dangerous to ad"oining
landowners and can withstand the usual and e,pected forces of nature. )f the structures
cause in"ur$ or damage to an ad"oining landowner or a third person the latter can claim
indemnification for the in"ur$ or damage suffered.
.rticle 2'7+ of the Ci-il Code imposes a ci-il lia!ilit$ on a person for damage caused !$
his act or omission constituting fault or negligence. Howe-er responsi!ilit$ for fault or
negligence under the said article is entirel$ separate and distinct from the ci-il lia!ilit$
arising from negligence under the Penal Code. #he plaintiff cannot reco-er damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. #he decision is re-ersed and set
aside.
5%
Rep5b$% o# t6e ;6$$pp$4es v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-!3938, +pr$ 15, 1988, 170 S,R+ 228
,r5&, (.
*+,-S. .n application for registration of a parcel of land was filed on Be!ruar$ ''
'6+& !$ 2ose de la 4osa on his own !ehalf and on !ehalf of his three children. #he
land situated in #uding )togon =enguet Pro-ince was di-ided into 6 lots. .ccording to
the application Lots '3& were sold to 2ose de la 4osa and Lots +36 to his children !$
0ama$a =al!alio and 2aime .l!erto respecti-el$ in '6+D. )n support of the application
!oth =al!alio and .l!erto testified that the$ had acquired the su!"ect land !$ -irtue of
prescription =al!alio claimed to ha-e recei-ed Lots '3& from her father shortl$ after the
Li!eration. .l!erto said he recei-ed Lots +36 in '6+' from his mother =ella .l!erto. ;he
was corro!orated !$ Beli, 0arcos who recalled the earlier possession of the land !$
.l!ertoEs father. =enguet opposed on the ground that the 2une =ug mineral claim
co-ering Lots '3& was sold to it on ;eptem!er 22 '65D !$ the successors3in3interest of
2ames Sell$ who located the claim in ;eptem!er '6%6 and recorded it on 7cto!er 'D
'6%6. Brom the date of its purchase =enguet had !een in actual continuous and
e,clusi-e possession of the land in concept of owner. .to* alleged that a portion of Lots
'3& and all of Lots +36 were co-ered !$ the :mma and Bredia mineral claims located !$
Harrison and 4e$nolds on Aecem!er 2& '65% and recorded on 2anuar$ 2 '65' in the
office of the mining recorder of =aguio. #hese claims were purchased from these
locators on No-em!er 2 '65' !$ .to* which has since then !een in open continuous
and e,clusi-e possession of the said lots. #he =ureau of Borestr$ Ae-elopment also
interposed its o!"ection arguing that the land sought to !e registered was co-ered !$
the Central Cordillera Borest 4eser-e under Proclamation No. 2'7 dated Be!ruar$ '+
'626. 0oreo-er !$ reason of its nature it was not su!"ect to alienation under the
Constitutions of '65& and '675.
#he trial court denied the application holding that the applicants had failed to pro-e
their claim of possession and ownership of the land sought to !e registered. #he
applicants appealed to the respondent court which re-ersed the trial court and affirmed
the surface rights of the de la 4osas o-er the land while at the same time reser-ing the
su!3surface rights of =enguet and .to* !$ -irtue of their mining claims. =oth =enguet
and .to* appealed to the ;upreme Court in-o*ing their superior right of ownership. #he
4epu!lic filed its own petition for re-iew and reiterated its argument that neither the
pri-ate respondents nor the two mining companies had an$ -alid claim to the land
!ecause it was not aliena!le and registera!le.
/SS01. 8hether or not =enguet and .to* ha-e a !etter right o-er the propert$ in
question.
H1L2. 9es. )t is true that the su!"ect propert$ was considered forest land and included
in the Central Cordillera Borest 4eser-e !ut this did not impair the rights alread$ -ested
in =enguet and .to* at that time. #he perfection of the mining claim con-erted the
propert$ to mineral land and under the laws then in force remo-ed it from the pu!lic
domain. =$ such act the locators acquired e,clusi-e rights o-er the land against e-en
5'
the go-ernment without need of an$ further act such as the purchase of the land or the
o!tention of a patent o-er it. .s the land had !ecome the pri-ate propert$ of the
locators the$ had the right to transfer the same as the$ did to =enguet and .to*.
)t is true as the Court of .ppeals o!ser-ed that such pri-ate propert$ was su!"ect to
the F-icissitudes of ownershipF or e-en to forfeiture !$ non3user or a!andonment or as
the pri-ate respondents a-er !$ acquisiti-e prescription. #he Court of .ppeals "ustified
this !$ sa$ing there is Fno conflict of interestF !etween the owners of the surface rights
and the owners of the su!3surface rights. Cnder the aforesaid ruling the land is
classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface su!"ect to separate
claims of title. Howe-er the rights o-er the land are indi-isi!le and that the land itself
cannot !e half agricultural and half mineral. #he classification must !e categorical> the
land must !e either completel$ mineral or completel$ agricultural. )n the instant case as
alread$ o!ser-ed the land which was originall$ classified as forest land ceased to !e so
and !ecame mineral G and completel$ mineral G once the mining claims were
perfected. .s long as mining operations were !eing underta*en thereon or underneath
it did not cease to !e so and !ecome agricultural e-en if onl$ partl$ so !ecause it was
enclosed with a fence and was culti-ated !$ those who were unlawfull$ occup$ing the
surface.
#his is an application of the 4egalian doctrine. )f a person is the owner of agricultural
land in which minerals are disco-ered his ownership of such land does not gi-e him the
right to e,tract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the ;tate to which
such minerals !elong.
=enguet and .to* ha-e e,clusi-e rights to the propert$ in question !$ -irtue of their
respecti-e mining claims which the$ -alidl$ acquired !efore the Constitution of '65&
prohi!ited the alienation of all lands of the pu!lic domain e,cept agricultural lands
su!"ect to -ested rights e,isting at the time of its adoption. #he land was not and could
not ha-e !een transferred to the pri-ate respondents !$ -irtue of acquisiti-e
prescription nor could its use !e shared simultaneousl$ !$ them and the mining
companies for agricultural and mineral purposes. #he decision is set aside and that of
the trial court is reinstated.
52
,5stod$o v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 117100, *ebr5ar' 9, 1997, 253 S,R+ !83
Regaado, (.
*+,-S. Pacifico 0a!asa owns a parcel of land with a two3door apartment. ;aid
propert$ ma$ !e descri!ed to !e surrounded !$ other immo-a!les owned !$ petitioner
;pouses Custodio ;pouses ;antos and 4osalina 0orato. Brom the main street P.
=urgos there are two possi!le passagewa$s to 0a!asa/s propert$. 7ne of the tenants
of the apartment -acated !ecause an ado!e fence was constructed there!$ ma*ing the
first passagewa$ narrower in width. 0a. Cristina ;antos testified that she constructed
said fence for securit$ reasons. 0orato also constructed her fence and e-en e,tended it
in such a wa$ that the entire passagewa$ was enclosed. )t was then that the remaining
tenants of the apartment left. #hereafter 0a!asa filed a case for the grant of an
easement of right of wa$ against petitioners. #he 4#C granted the easement of right of
wa$ sought !$ pri-ate respondent. 7n appeal the C. affirmed the decision of the 4#C
and furthermore ordering petitioners to pa$ pri-ate respondent a sum of mone$ for
damages.
/SS01. 8hether the award of damages to pri-ate respondent is proper.
H1L2. No the act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a -alid
e,ercise of their right as owners. .rticle D5% of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that Ie-er$
owner ma$ enclose or fence his land or tenements !$ means of walls ditches li-e or
dead hedges or !$ an$ other means without detriment to ser-itudes constituted
thereon. #he proper e,ercise of a lawful right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which
an action will lie although the act ma$ result in damage to another. #he courts can gi-e
no redress for hardship to an indi-idual resulting from action reasona!l$ calculated to
achie-e a lawful end !$ lawful means.
55
+be@aro4 v. Nabasa
G.R. No. 8!831, (54e 20, 2001, 359 S,R+ !7
;54o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner .!e"aron a-ers that he is the actual and lawful possessor and
claimant of a ''83square meter portion of a '7&3square meter residential lot in ;ilwa$
General ;antos Cit$. Petitioner .!e"aron and his famil$ occupied the ''83square meter
land. .t that time the land had not $et !een sur-e$ed. #he$ fenced the area and !uilt
thereon a famil$ home with nipa roofing and a small store. Petitioner later impro-ed their
a!ode to !ecome a two3store$ house. #his house which stands to this da$ occupies a
portion of Lot ' =loc* & and a portion of the ad"oining Lot 2 of the same Psu. Lot 2
!elongs to petitionersE daughter Conchita. #he small store was e-entuall$ destro$ed
and in its stead petitioner .!e"aron another store. He later planted fi-e coconut trees on
the propert$. Snowing that the disputed land was pu!lic in character petitioner declared
onl$ his house and not the disputed land for ta,ation purposes. #he last two
declarations state that petitionersE house stands on Lots ' and 2 =loc* &. Petitioner
stated that respondent Na!asa resided on the remaining &73square meter portion of Lot
'. Na!asa !uilt his house a!out D meters awa$ from petitioner .!e"aronEs house.
:mplo$ees of the =ureau of Lands sur-e$ed the area. .!e"aron did not appl$ for title of
the land on the !elief that he could not secure title o-er it as it was go-ernment
propert$. 8ithout his *nowledge and consent Na!asa applied for and caused the titling
in his name the entire Lot ' including petitioner .!e"aronEs ''83square meter portion.
Na!asa was issued an 7riginal Certificate of #itle pursuant to a Bree Patent co-ering
Lot '. .s the title included petitioner .!e"aron/s portion of the lot he filed a protest with
the =ureau of Lands against Na!asaEs title and application. #he protest was dismissed
for failure of the petitioner to attend the hearings. Petitioner .!e"aron then filed an
action for recon-e$ance with damages against respondent Na!asa !efore the 4#C. #he
4#C #he 4egional #rial Court ruled in fa-or of petitioner in its recon-e$ance case
declaring the possession and occupanc$ of .!e"aron o-er ''8 square meters of lot in
good faith and there!$ declaring the inclusion of said portion in the 7C# issued in the
name of Na!asa erroneous. 7n appeal the C. re-ersed the decision of the 4#C
stating that the onl$ !asis for recon-e$ance is actual fraud which in this case was failed
to !e su!stantiated !$ .!e"aron. 8ithout proof of irregularit$ neither in the issuance of
title nor in the proceedings incident thereto nor a claim that fraud inter-ened in the
issuance of the title the title would !ecome indefeasi!le. #he petitioner hence resorts to
the ;upreme Court.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner has acquired title o-er the disputed land.
H1L2. .n action for recon-e$ance of a propert$ is the sole remed$ of a landowner
whose propert$ has !een wrongfull$ or erroneousl$ registered in anotherEs name after
one $ear from the date of the decree so long as the propert$ has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for -alue. #he action does not see* to reopen the registration
proceeding and set aside the decree of registration !ut onl$ purports to show that the
person who secured the registration of the propert$ in contro-ers$ is not the real owner
thereof. Braud is a ground for recon-e$ance. Bor an action for recon-e$ance !ased on
5D
fraud to prosper it is essential for the part$ see*ing recon-e$ance to pro-e !$ clear and
con-incing e-idence his title to the propert$ and the fact of fraud.
4econ-e$ance is a remed$ granted onl$ to the owner of the propert$ alleged to !e
erroneousl$ titled in anotherEs name. )n the case at !ench petitioner does not claim to
!e the owner of the disputed portion. .dmittedl$ what he has is onl$ a Fpreferential
rightF to acquire ownership thereof !$ -irtue of his actual possession since 2anuar$
'6D7. #itle to aliena!le pu!lic lands can !e esta!lished through open continuous and
e,clusi-e possession for at least 5% $ears. Not !eing the owner petitioner cannot
maintain the present suit. Persons who ha-e not o!tained title to pu!lic lands could not
question the titles legall$ issued !$ the ;tate.
5&
)a%6ra%6 3otor ,o., /4%. v. -a$sa' B S$a' 3$$4g ,o.
G.R. No. 35223, September 17, 1931, 57 ;6$. 117
Rom5ade&, (.
*+,-S. 7n Aecem!er 22 '625 the #alisa$3;ila$ 0illing Co. )nc. was inde!ted to the
Philippine National =an*. #o secure the pa$ment of its de!t it succeeded in inducing its
planters among whom was 0ariano Lacson Ledesma to mortgage their land to the
creditor !an*. .nd in order to compensate those planters for the ris* the$ were running
with their propert$ under the mortgage the aforesaid central !$ a resolution passed on
that same date i.e. Aecem!er 22 '625 undertoo* to credit the owners of the
plantation thus mortgaged e-er$ $ear with a sum equal to two per centum of the de!t
secured according to $earl$ !alance the pa$ment of the !onus !eing made at once or
in part from time to time as soon as the central !ecame free of its o!ligations to the
aforesaid !an* and of those contracted !$ -irtue of the contract of super-ision and had
funds which might !e so used or as soon as it o!tained from said !an* authorit$ to
ma*e such pa$ment.
=achrach 0otor Co. )nc. filed a complaint against the #alisa$3;ila$ 0illing Co. )nc. for
the deli-er$ of the amount P'58&% or promissor$ notes or other instruments or credit
for that sum pa$a!le on 2une 5% '65% as !onus in fa-or of 0ariano Lacson Ledesma.
#he Philippine National =an* filed a third part$ claim alleging a preferential right to
recei-e an$ amount which 0ariano Lacson Ledesma might !e entitled to from the
#alisa$3;ila$ 0illing Co. as !onus !ecause that would !e ci-il fruits of the land
mortgaged to said !an* !$ said de!tor for the !enefit of the central referred to and !$
-irtue of a deed of assignment and pra$ing that said central !e ordered to deli-ered
directl$ to the inter-ening !an* said sum on account of the latterEs credit against the
aforesaid 0ariano Lacson Ledesma.
/SS01. 8hether or not the !onus in question is ci-il fruits
H1L2. No. #he said !onus !ears no immediate !ut onl$ a remote accidental relation to
the land mentioned ha-ing !een granted as compensation for the ris* of ha-ing
su!"ected oneEs land to a lien in fa-or of the !an* for the !enefit of the entit$ granting
said !onus. )f this !onus !e income or ci-il fruits of an$thing it is income arising from
said ris* or if one chooses from 0ariano Lacson LedesmaEs generosit$ in facing the
danger for the protection of the central !ut certainl$ it is not ci-il fruits or income from
the mortgaged propert$. Hence the amount of the !onus according to the resolution of
the central granting it is not !ased upon the -alue importance or an$ other
circumstance of the mortgaged propert$ !ut upon the total -alue of the de!t there!$
secured according to the annual !alance which is something quite distinct from and
independent of the propert$ referred to.
1D5ator$a Reat' 2eveopme4t, /4%. v. 3a'#a$r -6eater, /4%.
5+
G.R. No. 137221, 3a' 12, 2000, 370 S,R+ 57
;ardo, (.
*+,-S. Carmelo and =auermann )nc. use to own a parcel of land together with two
23store$ !uildings constructed thereon. Carmelo entered into a Contract of Lease with
0a$fair #heater )nc. for a period of 2% $ears. #he lease co-ered a portion a portion of
the second floor and mezzanine of a 23store$ !uilding which respondent used as a
mo-ie house *nown as 0a,im #heater. #wo $ears later 0a$fair entered into a second
Contract of Lease with of Carmelo for the lease of another portion of the latter/s propert$
P namel$ part of the second floor of the 23store$ !uilding and two store spaces on the
ground floor and the mezzanine on which 0a$fair put up another mo-ie house *nown
as 0iramar #heater. #he contract was li*ewise for a period of 2% $ears. =oth leases
contained a pro-ision granting 0a$fair a right of first refusal to purchase the su!"ect
properties. Howe-er the su!"ect properties were sold !$ Carmelo to :quatorial 4ealt$
Ae-elopment )nc. without offering it first to 0a$fair. 0a$fair filed a Complaint !efore the
4#C of 0anila for the annulment of the Aeed of .!solute ;ale !etween Carmelo and
:quatorial. #he 4#C rendered its decision in fa-our of Carmelo and :quatorial. #he
Court of .ppeals completel$ re-ersed and set aside the "udgment of the lower court.
#he ;upreme Court denied the petition for re-iew and rescinded the contract of sale
!etween Carmelo and :quatorial and ordered Carmelo to allow 0a$fair to !u$ the lots.
Howe-er Carmelo could no longer !e located. #hus following the order of e,ecution of
the trial court 0a$fair deposited with the cler* of court a quo its pa$ment to Carmelo.
#he lower court issued a Aeed of 4econ-e$ance in fa-our of Carmelo and a Aeed of
;ale in fa-or of 0a$fair. Later :quatorial filed with the trial court an action for the
collection of the sum of mone$ against 0a$fair claiming pa$ment of rentals or
reasona!le compensation for the defendant/s use of su!"ect premises after its lease
contract had e,pired.
/SS01. 8hether or not :quatorial should !e entitled to !ac* rentals.
H1L2. No. 4escission creates the o!ligation to return the things which were the o!"ect
of the contract together with their fruits and the price with its interest. )t is clear the
:quatorial ne-er too* actual control and possession of the propert$ sold in -iew of
0a$fair/s timel$ o!"ection to the sale and continued actual possession of the propert$.
Burthermore the fact that 0a$fair paid rentals to :quatorial during the litigation should
not !e interpreted to mean actual deli-er$ or ispo facto recognition of :quatorial/s title.
#he$ were made merel$ to a-oid imminent e-iction and should not !e construed as
recognition of :quatorial as new owner.
57
/g4a%$o v. H$ar$o
G.R. No. L-175, +5g5st 30, 19!7, 77 ;6$. 705
3ora4, ,. (.
*+,-S. #his case concerns the ownership of a parcel of land partl$ rice3land and
partl$ residential. #he lower court rendered "udgment holding plaintiffs as the legal
owners of the whole propert$ !ut conceding to defendants the ownership of the houses
and granaries !uilt !$ them on the residential portion with the rights of a possessor in
good faith in accordance with article 5+' of the Ci-il Code.
;u!sequentl$ the plaintiffs pra$ed for an order of e,ecution alleging that since the$
chose neither to pa$ defendants for the !uildings nor to sell to them the residential lot
said defendants should !e ordered to remo-e the structure at their own e,pense and to
restore plaintiffs in the possession of said lot. Aefendants o!"ected to this motion which
after hearing was granted !$ 2udge Nati-idad. Hence this petition !$ defendants
pra$ing for ?a@ a restraint and annulment of the order of e,ecution issued !$ 2udge
Nati-idad> ?!@ an order to compel plaintiffs to pa$ them the sum of P2%%% for the
!uildings or sell to them the residential lot for PD&> or ?c@ a rehearing of the case for a
determination of the rights of the parties upon failure of e,tra3"udicial settlement.
/SS01. 8hether the respondent Court erred in its "udgment.
H1L2. 9es. #he Ci-il Code pro-ides<
.4#. 5+'. #he owner of land on which an$thing has !een !uilt sown or planted in good
faith shall ha-e the right to appropriate as his own the wor* sowing or planting after
the pa$ment of the indemnit$ stated in articles D&5 and D&D or to o!lige the one who
!uilt or planted to pa$ the price of the land and the one who sowed the proper rent.
.4#. D&5. Necessar$ e,penses shall !e refunded to e-er$ possessor> !ut onl$ the
possessor in good faith ma$ retain the thing until such e,penses are made good to him.
Cseful e,penses shall !e refunded to the possessor in good faith with the same right of
retention the person who has defeated him in the possession ha-ing the option of
refunding the amount of the e,penses or pa$ing the increase in -alue which the thing
ma$ ha-e acquired in consequence thereof.
#he owner of the !uilding erected in good faith on a land owned !$ another is entitled
to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the -alue of his !uilding under article
D&5. #he owner of the land upon the other hand has the option under article 5+'
either to pa$ for the !uilding or to sell his land to the owner of the !uilding. =ut he
cannot as respondents here did refuse !oth to pa$ for the !uilding and to sell the land
and compel the owner of the !uilding to remo-e it from the land where it is erected. He
is entitled to another motion onl$ when after ha-ing chosen to sell his land the other
part$ fails to pa$ for the same.
58
#he Court holds therefore that the order of 2udge Nati-idad compelling defendants3
petitioners to remo-e their !uildings from the land !elonging to plaintiffs3respondents
onl$ !ecause the latter chose neither to pa$ for such !uildings not to sell the land is null
and -oid for it amends su!stantiall$ the "udgment sought to !e e,ecuted and is
furthermore offensi-e to articles 5+' and D&5 of the Ci-il Code.
/g4ao v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 72877, (a45ar' 18, 1991, 193 S,R+ 17
*er4a4, ,. (.
*+,-S. Petitioner Blorencio )gnao and his uncles 2uan )gnao and )sidro )gnao were co3
owners of a &5Dsqm land located in Ca-ite. Pursuant to an action for partition filed !$
petitioner the CB) of Ca-ite directed the partition of the said land. . total of '55.& sqm
was allotted to the petitioner/s uncles while the remaining 2++.& was allotted to the
petitioner. Howe-er when 2uan and )sidro !uilt their houses the$ encroached upon a
portion of land !elonging to Blorencio. . geodetic engineer sur-e$ed the land and it was
found out that 2uan and )sidro occupied a total of '%'sqm of Blorencio/s lot.
#he trial court which !ased its decision on .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code ruled that
Blorencio should ha-e the choice to either appropriate to himself that part of the house
standing on his lot or to require 2uan and )sidro to pa$ the price of the land. =ut since
the first option seems to !e impractical it ordered to sell to 2uan and )sidro those
portions occupied !$ them !ecause it is the Iwor*a!le solutionJ. Cpon appeal petitioner
contends that .rticle DD8 cannot !e applied !ecause the$ are co3owners of he su!"ect
propert$. Howe-er the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
);;C:< 8hether or not .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code is applica!le in the case at !ar.
H:LA< 9es. )t is true that .rticle DD8 cannot !e applied where a co3owner !uilds upon a
land owned in common. Howe-er in the case at !ar the co3ownership has alread$
!een terminated !$ -irtue of the partition thus .rticle DD8 now applies since the !uilder
is not an$more considered as an owner of the land where the house was !uilt.
.s to the wor*a!le solution applied !$ the lower court the same cannot !e upheld
!ecause .rticle DD8 clearl$ states that the right of choice !elongs to the land owner and
not upon the !uilder and the courts. #hus whether it might seem impractical the
landowner ma$ choose to appropriate the impro-ements.
*$$p$4as ,oeges, /4%. v. Gar%$a -$mba4g, et. a.,
G.R. No. L-12812, September 29, 1989, 17! S,R+ 287
)arrera, (.
56
*+,-S. .fter appropriate proceedings the Court of .ppeals held among other things
that Bilipinas Colleges )nc. are declared to ha-e acquired the rights of the spouses
#im!ang in the questioned lots the$ are ordered to pa$ the spouses #im!ang in the
amount of P'&8%7.6% plus such other amount which said spouses might ha-e paid or
had to pa$. 7n the other hand 0aria Ger-acio =las was also declared to !e a !uilder in
good faith of the school !uilding constructed in the lot in question and was entitled to !e
paid the amount of P'6%%%.%% for the same. .lso in case that Bilipinas Colleges )nc.
failed to deposit the -alue of the land which after liquidation was fi,ed at P528&6.5D
within the 6%3da$ period set !$ the Court Bilipinas Colleges would lose all its rights to
the land and the spouses #im!ang would then !ecome the owners thereof. )f that is the
case the #im!angs are ordered to ma*e *nown to the court their option under .rticle
DD8 of the Ci-il Code whether the$ would appropriate the !uilding in question in which
e-en the$ would ha-e to pa$ Bilipinas Colleges )nc. the sum of P'6%%%.%% or would
compel the latter to acquire the land and pa$ the price thereof. Bilipinas Colleges )nc.
failed to pa$ the sum of P528&6.5D so the spouses #im!ang made *nown to the court
their decision that the$ had chosen not to appropriate the !uilding !ut to compel
Bilipinas Colleges )nc. for the pa$ment of the sum of P528&65D which was granted !$
the Court. .s a consequence of which a writ of e,ecution was issued. 0eanwhile =las
filed a motion for e,ecution of her "udgment representing the unpaid portion of the price
of the house sold to Bilipinas which was granted. Le-$ was made on the house in -irtue
of the writs of e,ecution. #hen the ;heriff of 0anila sold the !uilding in pu!lic auction in
fa-or of the spouses #im!ang as the highest !idders. ;e-eral motion were the
su!sequentl$ filed !efore the lower court wherein the court held that< a@ the ;heriffEs
certificate of sale co-ering a school !uilding sold at pu!lic auction was null and -oid
unless within '& da$s from notice of said order spouses #im!ang shall pa$ to =las the
sum of P&7&%.%% that the spouses #im!ang had !id for the !uilding at the ;heriffEs
sale> !@ that Bilipinas is owner of 2D&.%%H528&6.5D undi-ided interest in Lot No. 23a on
which the !uilding sold in the auction sale is situated> and c@ that the undi-ided interest
of the Bilipinas in the lot should !e sold to satisf$ the unpaid portion of the "udgment in
fa-or of =las and against Bilipinas in the amount of P82%%.%% minus the sum of
P&7&%.%%. #he spouses #im!ang contends that !ecause the !uilder in good faith has
failed to pa$ the price of the land after the owners thereof e,ercised their option under
.rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code the !uilder lost his right of retention pro-ided in .rticle &D+
and that !$ operation of .rticle DD& the spouses #im!ang as owners of the land
automaticall$ !ecame the owners ipso facto of the school !uilding.
/SS01. 8hether or not the spouses #im!ang automaticall$ !ecome the owners of the
!uilding upon failure of Bilipinas to pa$ the -alue of the land.
H1L2. No. =ased on .rticle DD8 and &D+ of the New Ci-il Code the owner of the land
has the right to choose !etween appropriating the !uilding !$ reim!ursing the !uilder of
the -alue thereof or compelling the !uilder in good faith to pa$ for his land. :-en this
second right cannot !e e,ercised if the -alue of the land is considera!l$ more than that
of the !uilding. )n addition to the right of the !uilder to !e paid the -alue of his
impro-ement .rticle &D+ gi-es him the corollar$ right of retention of the propert$ until
he is indemnified !$ the owner of the land. #here is nothing in the language of these
D%
two articles DD8 and &D+ which would "ustif$ the conclusion of appellants that upon
the failure of the !uilder to pa$ the -alue of the land when such is demanded !$ the
land3owner the latter !ecomes automaticall$ the owner of the impro-ement under
.rticle DD&. #he case of =ataclan -s =ernardo cannot !e applied in this case in the
sense that although it is true it was declared therein that in the e-ent of the failure of the
!uilder to pa$ the land after the owner thereof has chosen this alternati-e the !uilderEs
right of retention pro-ided in .rticle &D+ is lost ne-ertheless there was nothing said that
as a consequence thereof the !uilder loses entirel$ all rights o-er his own !uilding.
.lso in the present case the Court of .ppeals has alread$ ad"udged that appellee =las
is entitled to the pa$ment of the unpaid !alance of the purchase price of the school
!uilding. =las is actuall$ a lien on the school !uilding are concerned. #he order of the
lower court directing the #im!ang spouses as successful !idders to pa$ in cash the
amount of their !id in the sum of P&7&%.%% is therefore correct.
3a4oto8 Reat' v. -e%so4
G.R. No. L-!7!75 +5g5st 19, 1988, 17! S,R+ 287
G5t$erre& (r., (.
*+,-S. Petitioner 0anoto* 4ealt$ filed a complaint against Nilo 0adlangawa for
reco-er$ of possession with damages with the Court of Birst )nstance of 0anila. ;aid
court rendered "udgment declaring 0adlangawa as a !uilder3possessor in good faith>
ordering the compan$ to recognize the right of 0adlangawa to remain in Lot 5D& =loc*
' of the Clara #am!unting ;u!di-ision until after he shall ha-e !een reim!ursed !$ the
compan$ the sum of P7&%%.%% without pronouncement as to costs.
Not satisfied with the trial court/s decision petitioner appealed to the Court of .ppeals
and upon affirming the trial court/s decision it ele-ated the case to the ;upreme Court.
7n 2ul$ '5 '677 the ;upreme Court issued a resolution den$ing 0anoto*/s petition for
lac* of merit. Petitioner then filed with the trial court ?2udge 2ose H. #ecson@ a motion
for the appro-al of the compan$/s e,ercise of option and for satisfaction of "udgment.
Howe-er 2udge #ecson denied the motion for appro-al. Hence this petition is filed.
/SS01. 8hether or not respondent 2udge #ecson can den$ petitioner/s ?landowner@
motion to a-ail of its option.
H1L2. No. #here is therefore no !asis for the respondent "udge to den$ the
petitioner/s motion to a-ail of its option to appropriate the impro-ements made on its
propert$. Neither can the "udge den$ the issuance of a writ of e,ecution !ecause the
pri-ate respondent was ad"udged a !uilder in good faith or on the ground of Ipeculiar
circumstances which super-ened after the institution of this case li*e for instance the
introduction of certain ma"or repairs of and other su!stantial impro-ementsTJ !ecause
the option gi-en !$ law !elongs to the owner of the land. Cnder .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il
Code the right to appropriate the wor*s or impro-ements or to o!lige the one who !uilt
or planted to pa$ the proper price of the land !elongs to the owner of the land. #he onl$
D'
right gi-en to the !uilder in good faith is the right of reim!ursement of necessar$
e,penses for the preser-ation of the land> the !uilder cannot compel the landowner to
sell such land to the former.
)er4ardo v. )ata%a4
G.R. No. L-!!707, November 28, 1938, 77 ;6$. 598
La5re, (.
*+,-S. =ernardo !ought a parcel of land from ;amonte which was located in Ca-ite.
)n order that he ma$ ta*e possession and occup$ the said land he filed a case in the
CB) for such purpose and the court rendered a fa-ora!le decision for =ernardo.
Howe-er when he was supposedl$ set in occup$ing the said land he found =ataclan.
He was within the premises !ecause he was authorized !$ the pre-ious owners to clear
the land and ma*e the necessar$ impro-ements he deems fit further claiming that such
authorization was granted to him e-er since '622. ;ince =ataclan was not a part$ in the
first case =ernardo filed against him a separate case. =ernardo was declared owner
!ut the defendant was held to !e a possessor in good faith for whom the wor* done and
impro-ements made !$ him should !e reim!ursed. .n appeal to the decision of the
court was filed !$ !oth =ernardo and =ataclan. #he decision was modified !$ lowering
the price of the land from P5%% to P2%% per hectare. =ernardo was gi-en 5% da$s to
e,ercise his option whether to sell the land to =ataclan or to !u$ the impro-ements
from him. =ernardo chose the option which would require =ataclan to pa$ him the -alue
of the land at the rate of P2%% per hectare. Howe-er =ataclan informed the court that
he will not !e a!le to pa$ for the price of the land. #he court then ga-e =ataclan 5% da$s
to pa$ the price of the propert$ and after the lapse of the period the land shall !e sold in
a pu!lic auction. .fter 5% da$s the land was sold to #eodoro at a pu!lic auction after
failure of =ataclan to pa$ within the period the purchase price.
/SS01. 8hether or not =ataclan has the right of retention o-er the parcel of land in
question.
H1L2. No. =ataclan no longer has lost the right of retention. #he option of the owner
was alread$ e,ercised where he decided that he will "ust allow the defendant to
purchase the land such that =ataclan was to compl$ with the option if he wants to retain
the land. Brom the moment that he told the courts of his ina!ilit$ to pa$ for the price of
the land he alread$ lost his right to retain the land.
He$rs o# Ramo4 25ra4o, Sr. v. 0'
G.R. No. 137!57 "%tober 2!, 2000, 3!! S,R+ 238
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. 4espondents stated that sometime in .ugust '67% and months thereafter the$
D2
recei-ed mimeographed notices dated .ugust 2 '67% and signed !$ the late 4amon
Aurano ;r. informing them that the lands which the$ are tilling and residing in formerl$
owned !$ the Ce!u Portland Cement Compan$ ?hereafter ICepocJ@ had !een
purchased !$ Aurano K Co. )nc. #he notices also declared that the lands were needed
!$ Aurano K Co. for planting to sugar and for roads or residences and directed
respondents to immediatel$ turn o-er the said lands to the representati-es of the
compan$. ;imultaneousl$ tall !am!oo poles with pennants at the tops thereof were
planted in some areas of the lands and metal sheets !earing the initials I40AJ were
nailed to posts.
.s earl$ as the first wee* of .ugust '67% and e-en !efore man$ of the respondents
recei-ed notices to -acate men who identified themsel-es as emplo$ees of Aurano K
Co. proceeded to !ulldoze the lands occupied !$ -arious respondents destro$ing in
their wa*e the plantings and impro-ements made !$ the respondents therein. 7n
;eptem!er '& '67% Aurano K Co. sold the disputed propert$ to petitioner 4amon
Aurano ))) who procured the registration of these lands in his name under #C# No. #3
'%5 and #C# No. #3'%D.
4espondents contended that the displa$ of force and the *nown power and prestige of
petitioners and their famil$ restrained them from directl$ resisting this wanton
depredation upon their propert$. 4espondents urged the Aepartment of 2ustice to
conduct the preliminar$ in-estigation. #he 4#C found that the case preponderated in
fa-or of respondents who all possessed their respecti-e portions of the propert$
co-ered !$ #C# Nos. #3'%5 and #3'%D thin*ing that the$ were the a!solute owners
thereof. . num!er of these respondents alleged that the$ inherited these properties
from their parents who in turn inherited them from their own parents. ;ome others
came into the properties !$ purchase from the former occupants thereof. #he$ and their
predecessors were responsi!le for the plantings and impro-ements on the propert$.
#he$ were the ones who sought for the properties to !e ta,3declared in their respecti-e
names and the$ continuall$ paid the ta,es thereto. 4espondents maintained that the$
were unaware of an$one claiming ad-erse possession or ownership of these lands until
the !ulldozing operations in '67%.
Aissatisfied petitioners appealed the 4#C decision to the Court of .ppeals which in
turn affirmed the said decision and ordered the return of the propert$ to all the
respondents3claimants.
/SS01. 8hether or not the Court of .ppeals erred in its decision ordering the
petitioners to return the properties to the respondents.
H1L2. No. #he e-idence shows that respondents successfull$ complied with all the
requirements for acquisiti-e prescription to set in. #he properties were con-e$ed to
respondents !$ purchase or inheritance and in each case the respondents were in
actual continuous open and ad-erse possession of the properties. #he$ e,ercised
rights of ownership o-er the lands including the regular pa$ment of ta,es and
introduction of plantings and impro-ements. #he$ were unaware of an$one claiming to
D5
!e the owner of these lands other than themsel-es until the notices of demolition in
'67% 333 and at the time each of them had alread$ completed the ten3$ear prescripti-e
period either !$ their own possession or !$ o!taining from the possession of their
predecessors3in3interest.
Burthermore a purchaser of a parcel of land cannot close his e$es to facts which should
put a reasona!le man upon his guard such as when the propert$ su!"ect of the
purchase is in the possession of persons other than the seller. . !u$er who could not
ha-e failed to *now or disco-er that the land sold to him was in the ad-erse possession
of another is a !u$er in !ad faith. )n the case respondents were in open possession
and occupanc$ of the properties when Aurano K Co. supposedl$ purchased the same
from Cepoc. Petitioners made no attempt to in-estigate the nature of respondents/
possession !efore the$ ordered demolition in .ugust '67%.
)n the same manner the purchase of the propert$ !$ petitioner 4amon Aurano ))) from
Aurano K Co. could not !e said to ha-e !een in good faith. )t is not disputed that
Aurano ))) acquired the propert$ with full *nowledge of respondents/ occupanc$ thereon.
#here e-en appears to !e undue haste in the con-e$ance of the propert$ to Aurano )))
as the !ulldozing operations !$ Aurano K Co. were still underwa$ when the deed of sale
to Aurano ))) was e,ecuted on ;eptem!er '& '67%. #here is not e-en an indication that
Aurano K Co. attempted to transfer registration of the propert$ in its name !efore it
con-e$ed the same to Aurano ))).
;ince petitioners *new full$ well the defect in their titles the$ were correctl$ held !$ the
Court of .ppeals to !e !uilders in !ad faith.
#he Ci-il Code pro-ides<
.rt. DD6. He who !uilds plants or sows in !ad faith on the land of another loses what is
!uilt planted or sown without right of indemnit$.
.rt. D&%. #he owner of the land on which an$thing has !een !uilt planted or sown in
!ad faith ma$ demand the demolition of the wor* or that the planting or sowing !e
remo-ed in order to replace things in their former condition at the e,pense of the
person who !uilt planted or sowed> or he ma$ compel the !uilder or planter to pa$ the
price of the land and the sower the proper rent.
.rt. D&'. )n the cases of the two preceding articles the landowner is entitled to
damages from the !uilder planter or sower.
=ased on these pro-isions the owner of the land has three alternati-e rights< ?'@ to
appropriate what has !een !uilt without an$ o!ligation to pa$ indemnit$ therefor or ?2@
to demand that the !uilder remo-e what he had !uilt or ?5@ to compel the !uilder to pa$
the -alue of the land. )n an$ case the landowner is entitled to damages under .rticle
D&'.
DD
#he Court sustains the return of the properties to respondents and the pa$ment of
indemnit$ as !eing in accord with the reliefs under the Ci-il Code.
)aata4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 125783, 3ar%6 2, 1999, 30! S,R+ 3!
;54o, (.
*+,-S. =allatan 0artinez and Ling are the owners of ad"acent lots in 0ala!on 0etro
0anila. Lot No. 2D D'D square meters in area is registered in the name of petitioners
:den =allatan and spouses =ett$ 0artinez and Chong Ch$ Ling. Lots Nos. 2& and 2+
are registered in the name of respondent Gonzalo Go ;r. 7n Lot No. 2& respondent
8inston Go son of Gonzalo Go ;r. constructed his house. .d"acent to Lot No. 2+ is
Lot No. 27 registered in the name of respondent Li Ching 9ao. )n '68& petitioner
=allatan constructed her house on Lot No. 2D. Auring the construction she noticed that
the concrete fence and side pathwa$ of the ad"oining house of respondent 8inston Go
encroached on the entire length of the eastern side of her propert$. Her !uilding
contractor informed her that the area of her lot was actuall$ less than that descri!ed in
the title. Borthwith =allatan informed respondent Go of this discrepanc$ and his
encroachment on her propert$. Go howe-er claimed that his house including its fence
and pathwa$ were !uilt within the parameters of his fatherEs lot> and that this lot was
sur-e$ed !$ :ngineer 2ose Muedding the authorized sur-e$or of the .raneta )nstitute
of .griculture ?.).@ the owner3de-eloper of the su!di-ision pro"ect. ;o =allatan called
the attention of the ).) and after another sur-e$ of the land :ngineer Muedding found
that the lot area of petitioner =allatan was less !$ few meters and that of respondent Li
Ching 9ao which was three lots awa$ increased !$ two meters. :ngineer Muedding
declared that he made a -erification sur-e$ of Lots Nos. 2& and 2+ of respondents Go in
'685 and allegedl$ found the !oundaries to ha-e !een in their proper position. He
howe-er could not e,plain the reduction in =allatanEs area since he was not present at
the time respondents Go constructed their !oundar$ walls.
7n '% 2une '68& petitioner =allatan made a written demand on respondents Go to
remo-e and dismantle their impro-ements on Lot No. 2D !ut Go refused. ;o =allatan
instituted against Go a ci-il case for reco-er$ of possession the 4#C of 0ala!on
decided in fa-or of =allatan ordering the GoEs to -acate the su!"ect portion of Lot No.
2D demolish their impro-ements and pa$ petitioner =allatan actual damages attorne$Es
fees and the costs of the suit. Go appealed.
/SS01. 8hether or not =allatan ha-e a right of remotion.
H1L2. .ll the parties ha-e acted in good faith so .rticle DD8 must appl$. Petitioners are
ordered to e,ercise within thirt$ ?5%@ da$s from finalit$ of the decision their option to
either !u$ the portion of respondents GoEs impro-ement on their Lot No. 2D or sell to
said respondents the portion of their land on which the impro-ement stands. )f
petitioners elect to sell the land or !u$ the impro-ement the purchase price must !e at
D&
the pre-ailing mar*et price at the time of pa$ment. )f !u$ing the impro-ement will render
respondents GoEs house useless then petitioners should sell the encroached portion of
their land to respondents Go. )f petitioners choose to sell the land !ut respondents Go
are unwilling or una!le to !u$ then the latter must -acate the su!"ect portion and pa$
reasona!le rent from the time petitioners made their choice up to the time the$ actuall$
-acate the premises. =ut if the -alue of the land is considera!l$ more than the -alue of
the impro-ement then respondents Go ma$ elect to lease the land in which case the
parties shall agree upon the terms the lease. ;hould the$ fail to agree on said terms
the court of origin is directed to fi, the terms of the lease.
D+
Spo5ses 2e "%ampo v. +bes$a
G.R. No. L-!9219, +pr$ 15, 1998, 170 S,R+ 379
Ga4%a'%o, (.
*+,-S. Plaintiffs P spouses Concepcion Bernandez and :stanislao Ael Campo and
defendant =ernarda Bernandez .!esia are co3owners of parcel of land with an area of
D& square meters and di-ided in the proportion of 2H5 and 'H5 share each respecti-el$.
. commissioner who is appointed !$ the court conducted a sur-e$ and recommended
that the propert$ !e di-ided into two lots< Lot ''+' P . with an area of 5% square meters
for the plaintiffs and Lot ''+' P = with an area of '& square meters for the defendants.
Howe-er it was shown in the s*etch plan that the house of the defendant occupied the
portion with an area of & square meters of Lot ''+' P . of plaintiffs. #he parties as*ed
the court to finall$ settle and ad"udicate who among the parties should ta*e possession
of the & square meters of land.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code the rights of a !uilder in good faith
should !e applied to the plaintiff3spouses Ael Campo.
2.@ 8hether or not the house of the defendant .!esia should !e remo-ed and
demolished at their e,pense.
H1L2. '.@ 9es. .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code cannot appl$ where a co3owner !uilds
plants or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not !uild plant or sow
upon land that e,clusi-el$ !elongs to another !ut of which he is a co3owner. #he co3
owner is not a third person under the circumstances and the situation is go-erned !$
the rules of co3ownership. Howe-er when as in this case the co3ownership is
terminated !$ the partition and it appears that the house of defendants o-erlaps or
occupies a portion of & square meters of the land pertaining to plaintiffs which the
defendants o!-iousl$ !uilt in good faith then the pro-isions of .rticle DD8 of the new
Ci-il Code should appl$. 0anresa and Na-arro .mandi agree that the said pro-ision of
the Ci-il Code ma$ appl$ e-en when there was co3ownership if good faith has !een
esta!lished.
2.@ )t depends. .ppl$ing .rticle DD8 of the Ci-il Code the plaintiffs ha-e the right to
appropriate said portion of the house of defendants upon pa$ment of indemnit$ to
defendants as pro-ided for in .rticle &D+ of the Ci-il Code. 7therwise the plaintiffs ma$
o!lige the defendants to pa$ the price of the land occupied !$ their house. Howe-er if
the price as*ed for is considera!l$ much more than the -alue of the portion of the house
of defendants !uilt thereon then the latter cannot !e o!liged to !u$ the land. #he
defendant shall then pa$ the reasona!le rent to the plaintiffs upon such terms and
conditions that the$ ma$ agree. )n case of disagreement the trial court shall fi, the
terms thereof. 7f course defendants ma$ demolish or remo-e the said portion of their
house at their own e,pense if the$ so decide.
D7
;a%$#$% *arms /4%. v. 1sg5erra
G.R. No. L-21783, November 29, 1979, 30 S,R+ 78!
,astro, (.
*+,-S. 7n 7cto!er ' '6&+ to 0arch 2 '6&7 the Compan$ sold and deli-ered lum!er
and construction materials to the )nsular Barms )nc. which the latter used in the
construction of the si !uildings at its compound in =olinao Pangasinan of the total
procurement price of P'&%%%.%% the sum of PD7'%.'8 has not !een paid.
Consequentl$ the Compan$ instituted a ci-il case to reco-er the unpaid !alance and
the court sustained their claim. #he defendant sheriff le-ied th si, !uildings. #he Pacific
Barms )nc. filed a suit against the Compan$ and the sheriff asserting ownership o-er
the le-ied !uildings which it had acquired from the )nsular Barms !$ -irtue of a!solute
sale e,ecuted on 0arch 2' '6&8. Pacific pra$s that the "udicial sale of the si, !uildings
!e declared null and -oid. #he trial court rendered "udgment annulling the le-$ and the
certificate of sale. Howe-er it denied the plaintiffEs claim for actual and e,emplar$
damages on the ground that it was not Fprepared to find there was gross negligence or
!ad faith on the part of an$ defendantsF.
/SS01. 8hether or not the application !$ analog$ of the rules of accession would
suffice for a "ust ad"udication.
H1L2. .rticle DD7 of the Ci-il Code contemplates a principal and an accessor$> the land
!eing considered the principal and the plantings constructions or wor*s the accessor$.
#he owner of the land who in good faith 3 whether personall$ or through another 3
ma*es constructions or wor*s thereon using materials !elonging to some!od$ else
!ecomes the owner of the said materials with the o!ligation howe-er of pa$ing for their
-alue. 7n the other hand the owner of the materials is entitled to remo-e them
pro-ided no su!stantial in"ur$ is caused to the landowner. 7therwise he has the right to
reim!ursement for the -alue of his materials
.ppl$ing article DD7 !$ analog$ the Court consider the !uildings as the principal and
the lum!er and construction materials that went into their construction as the accessor$.
#hus the appellee if it does own the si, !uildings must !ear the o!ligation to pa$ for
the -alues of the said materials> the appellant G which apparentl$ has no desire to
remo-e the materials and e-en if it were minded to do so cannot remo-e them without
necessaril$ damaging the !uildings G has the corresponding right to reco-er the -alue
of the unpaid lum!er and construction materials.
;e%so4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 11581!, 3a' 27, 1995, 2!! S,R+ !07
2av$de, (r. (.
*+,-S. Pedro Pecson owned a commercial lot situated in Samias street Muezon Cit$
on which he !uilt a a four3door two3store$ apartment !uilding. =ut !ecause of failure to
D8
pa$ realt$ ta,es amounting to P'2%%%.%% the commercial lot owned was sold at a
pu!lic auction. )t was purchased !$ Nepomuceno which later sold the same to the
Nuguid spouses for P'%5%%% on 7cto!er '2 '685. Pecson then challenged the sale
alleging that the apartment !uilding contrar$ to the claim of the Nuguid spouses was
not included in the sale. #he lower court "udged in fa-or of Pecson declaring that the
apartment !uilding was indeed not included in the su!"ect sale. #he Court of .ppeals
affirmed the same. #he ;pouses Nuguid then filed a motion for deli-er$ of possession
of the lot and the apartment !uilding. #he lower court ruled in fa-or of the pri-ate
respondents !ut su!"ect to the reim!ursement to Pecson of the cost of constructing the
apartment !uilding minus the rents due to the spouses ?calculated at P2'%%% from
2une 25 '665 to ;eptem!er 25 '665@. 8ith the said decision at hand the spouses
then made a mo-e to e"ect Pecson and as well as the tenants residing therein.
Howe-er the spouses ha-e $et to pa$ Pecson for the construction costs.
/SS01. 8hether the Nuguid ;pouses can e"ect Pecson e-en if reim!ursement hasn/t
!een gi-en for the construction costs.
H1L2. No. #he Court ruled that since the spouses still ha-en/t reim!ursed Pecson for
the cost of construction of the !uilding the latter has the right to retain the propert$ and
along with it the fruits of which during such possession.
#he court ruled that though .rticle DD8 do not appl$ in the case at !ar. =$ its clear
language .rticle DD8 refers to a land whose ownership is claimed !$ two or more
parties one of whom has !uilt some wor*s or sown or planted something. #he !uilding
sowing or planting ma$ ha-e !een made in good faith or in !ad faith. .s in this case
since the owner himself was the one who constructed the impro-ement good faith and
!ad faith !ecomes irrele-ant. Howe-er !$ analog$ the indemnit$ ma$ !e applied
considering that the primar$ intent of .rticle DD8 is to a-oid a state of forced co3
ownership and that the parties agree that .rticles DD8 and &D+ of the Ci-il Code are
applica!le and indemnit$ for the impro-ements ma$ !e paid although the$ differ as to
the !asis of the indemnit$. ;ince the spouses ha-e opted to appropriate the apartment
!uilding Pecson is thus entitled to the possession and en"o$ment of the apartment
!uilding until he is paid the proper indemnit$ as well as of the portion of the lot where
the !uilding has !een constructed. #his is so !ecause the right to retain the
impro-ements while the corresponding indemnit$ is not paid implies the tenanc$ or
possession in fact of the land on which it is !uilt planted or sown. #he petitioner not
ha-ing !een so paid he was entitled to retain ownership of the !uilding and
necessaril$ the income therefrom.
D6
-e%64ogas ;6$$pp$4es 3a45#a%t5r$4g ,orporat$o4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 10889!, *ebr5ar', 10, 1997, 278 S,R+ 5
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. #echnogas purchased a parcel of land from Pariz )ndustries )nc. )n the same
$ear :duardo C$ purchased the land ad"acent to it. #he following $ear C$ !ought
another lot ad"oining the lot of #echnogas. Portions of the !uildings and wall !ought !$
#echnogas together with the land from Pariz )ndustries are occup$ing a portion of C$/s
ad"oining land. #he *nowledge of some encroachment was onl$ made *nown to !oth
parties after their parties of their respecti-e parcels of land.
/SS01S.
1.) 8hether or not petitioner #echnogas Philippines is a possessor in !ad faith.
2.@ 8hether or not petitioner #echnogas Philippines has stepped into the shoes of
the seller.
H1L2. '.@ No. Cnless one is -ersed in the science of sur-e$ing no one can determine
the precise e,tent or location of his propert$ !$ merel$ e,amining his paper title. #here
is no question in that when #echnogas purchased the land from Pariz )ndustries the
!uildings and other structures were alread$ in e,istence. Burthermore it is not clear as
to who actuall$ !uilt these structures !ut it can !e assumed that the predecessor3in3
interest of #echnogas Pariz )ndustries did so. .n article &27 of the New Ci-il Code
presumes good faith. ;ince no proof e,ists to show that the !uilder !uilt the
encroaching structures in !ad faith the structures should !e presumed to ha-e !een
!uilt in good faith. Good faith consists in the !elief of the !uilder that the land he is
!uilding on is his and his ignorance of an$ defect or flaw in his title. Burthermore
possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character e,cept in case and from
the moment facts e,ist which show that the possessor is not aware that he possesses
the thing improperl$ or wrongfull$. #he good faith ceases from the moment the defects
in the title are made *nown to the possessor !$ e,traneous e-idence or !$ suit for
reco-er$ of the propert$ of the true owner.
2.@ 9es. Has !een shown contrar$ as to the good faith of #echnogas has not !een
o-erthrown. ;imilarl$ upon deli-er$ of the propert$ to Pariz )ndustries as seller to
#echnogas as !u$er the latter acquired ownership of the propert$. Consequentl$
#echnogas is deemed to ha-e stepped into the shoes of the seller with regard to all the
rights of ownership of the propert$ o-er the immo-a!le sold including the right to
compel C$ to e,ercise either of the two options under .rticle DD8 of the New Ci-il Code.
#hus the landowner/s e,ercise of his option can onl$ ta*e place after the !uilder shall
ha-e to *now the intrusion P in short when !oth parties shall ha-e !ecome aware of it.
7nl$ then will the occasion for e,ercising the option arise for it is onl$ then that !oth
parties will ha-e !een aware that a pro!lem e,ists with regard to their propert$ rights.
&%
;easa4tv$e 2eveopme4t ,orporat$o4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 79788, *ebr5ar' 1, 1997,
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. 7n 0arch 2+ '67D 8ilson See on installment Lot 8 from C.#. #orres
:nterprises )nc. the e,clusi-e real estate agent of petitioner. Cnder the Contract to ;ell
on installment. See can e,ercise possession o-er the parcel of land e-en !efore the
completion of installment pa$ments. 7n 2anuar$ 2% '67& See paid C##:) relocation
fee of Php &%.%% and another on 2anuar$ 27 '67& for the preparation of lot plan. #hese
amounts were paid !$ See !efore he too* possession of Lot 8. .fter the preparation of
the lot plan and a cop$ was presented to See Oenaida 7cta-iano emplo$ee of C##:)
accompanied Aonna!elle See the wife of 8ilson See to inspect Lot 8. Cnfortuantel$
7cta-iano pointed Lot 6. #hereafter See constructed his residence on the said Lot 6
together a store repair shop and other impro-ements.
:dith 4o!illo purchased from Pleasant-ille Ae-elopment Corporation Lot 6. ;ometime
in '67& she sold the said parcel of land Lot 6 to :ldred 2ardinico which at that time is
-acant. Cpon pa$ing completel$ to 4o!illo 2ardinico secured from the 4egister of
Aeeds of =acolod Cit$ on Aecem!er '6 '678 #ransfer Certificate of #itle No. '%+5+7 in
his name. )t was onl$ that time that he disco-ered that 8ilson See ta*e possession of
that lot and that the same ha-e introduced impro-ements to the same lot. 2ardinico
confronted See and tried to reach for an amica!le settlement !ut failed.
7n 2anuar$ 5% '68' 2ardinico through his law$er demanded that See -acate Lot 6
and remo-e all the impro-ements introduced !$ the latter. See refused which made
2ardinico filed with the 0unicipal #rial Court in Cities =ranch 5 =acolod Cit$ a
complaint for e"ectment with damages against See. See in turn filed a third3part$
complaint against Pleasant-ille Ae-elopment Corporation and C##:).
#he 0#CC held that the erroneous deli-er$ was attri!uta!le to C##:) and the See has
no rights to Lot 6 !ecause of the rescission made !$ C##:) of their contract due to
See/s failure to pa$ the installment. 0#CC also held that See must pa$ reasona!le
rental for the use of Lot 6 and furthermore he cannot claim reim!ursement for the
impro-ements introduced !$ him. 7n appeal the 4egional #rial Court held that
Pleasant-ille and C##:) were not negligent and that See was in !ad faith.
See appealed directl$ to the ;upreme Court which referred the matter to the Court of
.ppeals. #he .ppellate Court o-erturned the ruling of the 4#C and held the See was a
!uilder in good faith and the erroneous deli-er$ was attri!uta!le to the negligence of
C##:). Hence the instant petition filed !$ Pleasant-ille.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not 8ilson See is a !uilder in good faith.
2.@ 8hether or not petitioner is lia!le for the acts of its agent C##:).
H1L2. '.@ Petitioner fails to persuade the Court to a!andon the findings and
&'
conclusions of the Court of .ppeals that See was a !uilder in good faith. Good faith
consists in the !elief of the !uilder that the land he is !uilding on is his and his
ignorance of an$ defect or flaw in his title. .nd as good faith is presumed petitioner has
the !urden of pro-ing !ad faith on the part of See. .t the time he !uilt impro-ements on
Lot 8 See !elie-ed that said lot was what he !ought from petitioner. He was not aware
that the lot deli-ered to him was not Lot 8. #hus See is in good faith. Petitioner failed to
pro-e otherwise.
#o demonstrate SeeEs !ad faith petitioner points to SeeEs -iolation of paragraphs 22
and 2+ of the Contract of ;ale on )nstallment. )t has no merit. ;uch -iolations ha-e no
!earing whatsoe-er on whether See was a !uilder in good faith that is on his state of
mind at the time he !uilt the impro-ements on Lot 6. #hese alleged -iolations ma$ gi-e
rise to petitionerEs cause of action against See under the said contract ?contractual
!reach@ !ut ma$ not !e the !asis to negate the presumption that See was a !uilder in
good faith.
2.@ 9es. #he rule is that the principal is responsi!le for the acts of the agent done within
the scope of his authorit$ and should !ear the damage caused to third persons. 7n the
other hand the agent who e,ceeds his authorit$ is personall$ lia!le for the damage.
=ut C##:) was acting within its authorit$ as the sole real estate representati-e of
petitioner when it made the deli-er$ to See onl$ that in so acting it was negligent. )t is
this negligence that is the !asis of petitionerEs lia!ilit$ as principal of C##:) per .rticles
'6%6 and '6'% of the Ci-il Code. Bor such negligence the petitioner should !e held
lia!le for damages. #he rights of See and 2ardinico -is3a3-is each other as !uilder in
good faith and owner in good faith respecti-el$ are regulated !$ law ?i.e. .rts. DD8
&D+ and &D8 of the Ci-il Code@. )t was error for the Court of .ppeals to ma*e a Fslight
modificationF in the application of such law U!$ holding petitioner and C##:) solidaril$
lia!leV on the ground of Fequit$F.
Germ$4$a4o v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 120303, (5' 2!, 1997, 259 S,R+ 3!!
2av$de, (r., (.
*+,-S. #his is a petition for re-iew on certiorari which has its origins in Ci-il Case No.
62'D of =ranch 5 of the 0unicipal #rial Court in Cities ?0#CC@ in Aagupan Cit$ for
unlawful detainer and damages. Auring the pre3trial conference the parties agreed to
confine the issues to< ?'@ whether there was an implied renewal of the lease which
e,pired in No-em!er '68&> ?2@ whether the lessees were !uilders in good faith and
entitled to reim!ursement of the -alue of the house and impro-ements> and ?5@ the
-alue of the house.
7n the first issue the court held that since the petitionersE mother was no longer the
owner of the lot in question at the time the lease contract was e,ecuted in '678 in -iew
of its acquisition !$ 0aria Lee as earl$ as '672 there was no lease to spea* of much
&2
less a renewal thereof. .nd e-en if the lease legall$ e,isted its implied renewal was
not for the period stipulated in the original contract !ut onl$ on a month3to3month !asis
pursuant to .rticle '+87 of the Ci-il Code. #he refusal of the petitionersE mother to
accept the rentals starting 2anuar$ '68+ was then a clear indication of her desire to
terminate the monthl$ lease. .s regard the petitionersE alleged failed promise to sell to
the pri-ate respondents the lot occupied !$ the house the court held that such should
!e litigated in a proper case !efore the proper forum not an e"ectment case where the
onl$ issue was ph$sical possession of the propert$.
#he court resol-ed the second issue in the negati-e holding that .rticles DD8 and &D+
of the Ci-il Code which allow possessors in good faith to reco-er the -alue of
impro-ements and retain the premises until reim!ursed did not appl$ to lessees li*e the
pri-ate respondents !ecause the latter *new that their occupation of the premises
would continue onl$ during the life of the lease. =esides the rights of the pri-ate
respondents were specificall$ go-erned !$ .rticle '+78 which allow reim!ursement of
up to one3half of the -alue of the useful impro-ements or remo-al of the impro-ements
should the lessor refuse to reim!urse.
7n the third issue the court deemed as conclusi-e the pri-ate respondentsE allegation
that the -alue of the house and impro-ements was P'8%%%%.%% there !eing no
contro-erting e-idence presented.
7n appeal !$ the pri-ate respondents the 4#C of Aagupan Cit$ re-ersed the trial
courtEs decision.
/SS01. 8hether or not .rticle DD8 or .rticle '+78 of the Ci-il Code should appl$ in the
instant case.
H1L2. )n this case !oth parties admit that the land in question was originall$ owned !$
the petitionersE mother. #he land was allegedl$ acquired later !$ one 0aria Lee !$ -irtue
of an e,tra"udicial foreclosure of mortgage. Lee howe-er ne-er sought a writ of
possession in order that she gain possession of the propert$ in question. #he
petitionersE mother therefore remained in possession of the lot. )t has !een said that
while the right to let propert$ is an incident of title and possession a person ma$ !e
lessor and occup$ the position of a landlord to the tenant although he is not the owner
of the premises let. #here is no need to appl$ !$ analog$ the pro-isions of .rticle DD8
on indemnit$ as was done in !ecson vs. Court of Appeals

!ecause the situation sought
to !e a-oided and which would "ustif$ the application of that pro-ision is not present in
this case. ;uffice it to sa$ Fa state of forced co3ownershipF would not !e created
!etween the petitioners and the pri-ate respondents. Bor as correctl$ pointed out !$ the
petitioners the right of the pri-ate respondents as lessees is go-erned !$ .rticle '+78
of the Ci-il Code which allows reim!ursement to the e,tent of one3half of the -alue of
the useful impro-ements.
)t must !e stressed howe-er that the right to indemnit$ under .rticle '+78 of the Ci-il
Code arises onl$ if the lessor opts to appropriate the impro-ements. ;ince the
&5
petitioners refused to e,ercise that option the pri-ate respondents cannot compel them
to reim!urse the one3half -alue of the house and impro-ements. Neither can the$ retain
the premises until reim!ursement is made. #he pri-ate respondentsE sole right then is to
remo-e the impro-ements without causing an$ more impairment upon the propert$
leased than is necessar$.


&D
+g5st$4 v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 77075-77, (5' 5, 1990, 187 S,R+ 218
Gr$4o B +D5$4o, (.
*+,-S. #he Caga$an 4i-er separates the towns of ;olana on the west and
#uguegarao on the east in the pro-ince of Caga$an. )n '6'6 the lands of the east of the
ri-er were co-ered !$ the #uguegarao Cadastre. )n '62& 7C# &D72 was issued for
land east of the Caga$an 4i-er owned !$ :ulogio .gustin. .s the $ears went !$ the
Caga$an 4i-er mo-ed graduall$ eastward depositing silt on the west !an*. #he shifting
of the ri-er and siltation continued until '6+8. )n '6&% all lands west of the ri-er were
included in the ;olana Cadastre. .mong these occup$ing lands co-ered !$ ;olana
Cadastre were Pa!lo =ina$ug and 0aria 0elad. #hrough the $ears the Caga$an 4i-er
eroded lands of the #uguegarao Cadastre on its eastern !an* among which was
.gustin/s Lot 8D&7 depositing the allu-ium as accretion on the land possessed !$
=ina$ug on the western !an*. Howe-er '6+8 after a !ig flood the Caga$an 4i-er
changed its course returned to its '6'6 !ed and in the process cut across the lands of
0aria 0elad #imoteo 0elad and the spouses Pa!lo =ina$ug and Geronima C!ina
whose lands were transferred on the eastern or #uguegarao side of the ri-er. #o
culti-ate those lots the$ had to cross the ri-er. )n .pril '6+6 while the 0elads =ina$ug
Cr!ina and their tenants were planting corn on their lots located on the easter side of
Caga$an 4i-er .gustin the heirs of =aldomero Langca$ 2uan Langca$ and .rturo
=alisi accompanied !$ the ma$or and some policemen of #uguegarao claimed the
same lands as their own and dro-e awa$ the 0elads =ina$ug and Cr!ina from the
premises.
/SS01. 8hether or not ownership of accretion is lost upon sudden and a!rupt change
of the ri-er.
H1L2. No. #he ownership of the accretion to the lands was not lost upon sudden and
a!rupt change of the course of the ri-er ?Caga$an 4i-er in '6+8 or '6+6 when it
re-erted to its old '6'6 !ed@ and separated or transferred said accretions to the other
side ?eastern !an*@ of the ri-er. .rticles D&6 and D+5 of the New Ci-il Code appl$ to this
situation. .rticle D&6 pro-ides that Iwhene-er the current of a ri-er cree* or torrent
segregates from an estate on its !an* a *nown portion of land and transfer it to another
estate the owner of the land to which the segregated portion !elonged retains the
ownership of it pro-ided that he remo-es the same within two $ears.J .rticle D+5
pro-ides thatJ whene-er the current of a ri-er di-ides itself into !ranches lea-ing a
piece of land or part thereof isolated the owner of the land retains his ownership. He
also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate !$ the current.J
,5reg v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 73!75, September 7, 1989, 177 S,R+ 313
3ed$adea, (.
&&
*+,-S. 7n No-em!er & '682 pri-ate respondents Aomingo .postol et al. filed a
complaint for quieting of title against petitioners Leonida Cureg et al. #he complaint
alleged that pri-ate respondents e,cept .postol are the legal andHor the forced heirs of
the late Aomingo Gerardo and his predecessors3in3interest ha-e !een in actual open
peaceful and continuous possession under a bona fide claim of ownership of a parcel
of land ?referred to as their ImotherlandJ@. ;u!sequentl$ the heirs -er!all$ sold the
ImotherlandJ to .postol. #he ImotherlandJ showed signs of accretion caused !$ the
mo-ement of the Caga$an 4i-er. 8hen pri-ate respondents were a!out to culti-ate
their ImotherlandJ together with its accretion the$ were pre-ented !$ the petitioners.
Petitioners alleged that the ImotherlandJ claimed !$ the pri-ate respondents is non3
e,istent that the Isu!"ect landJ is an accretion to their registered land and that
petitioners ha-e !een in possession and culti-ation of the IaccretionJ for man$ $ears
now.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioners ha-e the !etter right of accretion.
H1L2. 9es. #he petitioners are entitled to the accretion. #he Isu!"ect landJ is an allu-ial
deposit left !$ the northward mo-ement of the Caga$an 4i-er and pursuant to .rticle
D&7 of the New Ci-il Code< I#o the owners of land ad"oining the !an*s of ri-er !elong
the accretion which the$ graduall$ recei-e from the effects of the current of the waters.J
Howe-er the increase in the area of the petitioner/s land !eing an accretion left !$ the
change of course or the northward mo-ement of the Caga$an 4i-er does not
automaticall$ !ecome registered land "ust !ecause the lot which recei-es such
accretion is co-ered !$ a #orrens title. .s such it must also !e placed under the
operation of the #orrens s$stem.
V$a@ar v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 7729!, 2e%ember 12, 1988, 178 S,R+ !05
3ed$adea, (.
*+,-S. #he spouses 4icardo and Leonor Ladrido were the owners of Lot 7&''.
;pouses 4osendo and .na #e were also the registered owners of a parcel of land
descri!ed in their title as Lot 75D% of the Cadastral ;ur-e$ of Pototan. 7n + ;eptem!er
'675 4osendo #e with the conformit$ of his wife sold this lot to .ngelica B. 1ia"ar and
Celso B. 1ia"ar for P&%%%. . #orrens title was later issued in the latter/s names. Later
.ngelica 1ia"ar had Lot 75D% relocated and found out that the propert$ was in the
possession of 4icardo 9. Ladrido. Consequentl$ she demanded its return !ut Ladrido
refused. #he piece of real propert$ which used to !e Lot 75D% of the Cadastral ;ur-e$
of Pototan was located in !aranga$ Gui!uanogan Pototan )loilo> that at the time of the
cadastral sur-e$ in '62+ Lot 7&'' and Lot 75D% were separated !$ the ;uague 4i-er>
that Lot 75D% has !een in the possession of Ladrido> that the area of 'D%5+ sq.ms.
which was formerl$ the ri-er !ed of the ;uague 4i-er per cadastral sur-e$ of '62+ has
also !een in the possession of Ladrido> and that the 1ia"ars ha-e ne-er !een in actual
&+
ph$sical possession of Lot 75D%. 7n '& Be!ruar$ '67D .ngelica and Celso 1ia"ar
instituted a ci-il action for reco-er$ of possession and damages against 4icardo 9.
Ladrido. #he trial court rendered its decision in fa-or of Ladrido dismissing the
complaint of .ngelica and Celso 1ia"ar with costs against them declaring the Ladridos
are entitled to the possession thereof. Not satisfied with the decision the 1ia"ars
appealed to the Court of .ppeals. #he Court of .ppeals affirmed the decision of the
court. #he 1ia"ars filed a petition for re-iew on certiorari.
/SS01. 8hether the respondents are entitled to the land on the ground of accretion.
H1L2. .rticle D&7 of the New Ci-il Code pro-ides that Ito the owners of lands ad"oining
the !an*s of ri-ers !elong the accretion which the$ graduall$ recei-e from the effects of
the current of the waters.F #he presumption is that the change in the course of the ri-er
was gradual and caused !$ accretion and erosion. )n the present case the lower court
correctl$ found that the e-idence introduced !$ the 1ia"ars to show that the change in
the course of the ;uague 4i-er was sudden or that it occurred through a-ulsion is not
clear and con-incing. #he Ladridos ha-e sufficientl$ esta!lished that for man$ $ears
after '62+ a gradual accretion on the eastern side of Lot 7&'' too* place !$ action of
the current of the ;uague 4i-er so that in '676 an allu-ial deposit of 266'2 sq.ms.
more or less had !een added to Lot 7&''. #he esta!lished facts indicate that the
eastern !oundar$ of Lot 7&'' was the ;uague 4i-er !ased on the cadastral plan. Bor a
period of more than D% $ears ?!efore '6D% to '68%@ the ;uague 4i-er o-erflowed its
!an*s $earl$ and the propert$ of the defendant graduall$ recei-ed deposits of soil from
the effects of the current of the ri-er. #he consequent increase in the area of Lot 7&''
due to allu-ion or accretion was possessed !$ the defendants whose tenants plowed
and planted the same with corn and to!acco. #he quondam ri-er !ed had !een filled !$
accretion through the $ears. #he land is alread$ plain and there is no indication on the
ground of an$ a!andoned ri-er !ed. Cnder the law accretion which the !an*s or ri-ers
ma$ graduall$ recei-e from the effects of the current of the waters !ecomes the
propert$ of the owners of the lands ad"oining the !an*s. #herefore the accretion to Lot
7&'' which consists of Lots . and = !elong to the Ladridos.
Vda. 2e Na&are4o v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 980!5, (54e 27, 1997, 257 S,R+ 589
Romeo, (.
*+,-S. #he su!"ect of this contro-ers$ is a parcel of land formed as a result of sawdust
dumped into the dried3up =alacanas Cree* and along the !an*s of the Caga$an ri-er.
Pri-ate respondents ;alasalan and 4a!a$a leased the su!"ect lots on which their
houses stood from .ntonio Nazareno petitioners/ predessor3in3interest. Pri-ate
respondents allegedl$ stopped pa$ing rentals. .s a result Nazareno and petitioners
filed a case for e"ectment with the 0#C of Caga$an de 7ro Cit$. #he 0#C rendered a
decision against pri-ate respondents which was affirmed !$ the 4#C. .fter se-eral
petitions for annulmentof "udgment !$ pri-ate respondents which were all dismissed the
&7
decision of the lower court was finall$ enforced with the pri-ate respondents !eing
e"ected from portions of the su!"ect lots the$ occupied. =efore Nazareno died he
caused the appro-al !$ the =ureau of lands of the sur-e$ plan with a -iew to perfecting
his title o-er the accretion area !eing claimed !$ him. #he said petition was protested
!$ pri-ate respondents. .fter conducting a sur-e$ of the su!"ect land land in-estigator
.-elino la!is recommended that the sur-e$ plan !e cancelled and that pri-ate
respondents !e directed to file appropriate pu!lic land application co-ering their
respecti-e portions. Nazareno filed a motion for reconsideration with the Cndersecretar$
of the Aepartment of Natural 4esources and 7)C of the =ureau of lands )gnacio who
denied the 0otion. 4espondent Airector of lands .!elardo Palad ordered Nazareno to
-acate the portions ad"udicated to pri-ate respondents and remo-e whate-er
impro-ements the$ ha-e introduced> he also ordered that pri-ate respondents !e placed
in possession thereof. . petitioner filed a case for annulment of the pre-ious decisions
with the 4#C !ut was dismissed. #he C. affirmed the 4#C decision contending that the
appro-ed of the sur-e$ plan !elongs e,clusi-el$ to the Airector of lands and the same
shall !e conclusi-e when appro-ed !$ the ;ecretar$ of .griculture and Natural
4esources.

/SS01. 8hether or not petitioners can claim ownership of the su!"ect land !$ -irtue of
.rt D&7 of the Ci-il Code.
H1L2. No accretion as a mode of acquiring propert$ under .rt D&7 of the NCC
requires the concurrence of the requisites mentioned in the .rticle. #hese are called
rules on allu-ion which if present in a case gi-e to the owners of lands ad"oining the
!an*s of ri-ers or streams an$ accretion graduall$ recei-ed from the effects of the
current of waters. #he word IcurrentJ indicates the participation of the !od$ of water in
the flow of waters due to high and low tide. Petitioners howe-er admit that the
accretion was formed !$ the dumping of !oulders soil and other filling materials on
portions of the =alacanas cree* and the Caga$an 4i-er. #he =ureau of lands classified
the su!"ect land as an accretion area which was formed !$ deposits of sawdust.
Petitioner/s su!mission not ha-ing met the first and second requirements of the rules of
allu-ion the$ cannot claim the rights of a riparian owner. #he su!"ect !eing pu!lic land
is under the "urisdiction of the =ureau of lands respondent Palad is authorized to
e,ercise e,ecuti-e control o-er an$ form of concession disposition and management of
the lands of pu!lic dominion.
He$rs o# Navarro v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 78177, *ebr5ar' 12, 1997, 278 S,R+ 589
Hermos$s$ma, (.
*+,-S. 7n 7cto!er 5 '6D+ ;inforoso Pascual filed an application for foreshore lease
co-ering a tract of foreshore land in ;i!ocon =alanga =ataan ha-ing an area of
appro,imatel$ se-enteen ?'7@ hectares. ;u!sequentl$ petitionersE predecessor3in3
interest :miliano Na-arro filed a fishpond application with the =ureau of Bisheries
&8
co-ering twent$ fi-e ?2&@ hectares of foreshore land also in ;i!ocon =alanga =ataan.
)nitiall$ such application was denied !$ the Airector of Bisheries on the ground that the
propert$ formed part of the pu!lic domain.
;ometime in the earl$ part of '6+% ;inforoso Pascual flied an application to register
and confirm his title to a parcel of land situated in ;i!ocon =alanga =ataan descri!ed
in Plan Psu3'7&'8' and said to ha-e an area of 'D++'' square meters. Pascual
claimed that this land is an accretion to his propert$ situated in =arrio Puerto 4i-as
=alanga =ataan and co-ered !$ 7riginal Certificate of #itle No. +85%. )t is !ounded on
the eastern side !$ the #alisa$ 4i-er on the western side !$ the =ulacan 4i-er and on
the northern side !$ the 0anila =a$. #he #alisa$ 4i-er as well as the =ulacan 4i-er flow
downstream and meet at the 0anila =a$ there!$ depositing sand and silt on PascualEs
propert$ resulting in an accretion thereon. ;inforoso Pascual claimed the accretion as
the riparian owner.
7n 0arch 2& '6+% the Airector of Lands represented !$ the .ssistant ;olicitor
General filed an opposition thereto stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors3in3
interest possessed sufficient title to the su!"ect propert$ the same !eing a portion of the
pu!lic domain and therefore it !elongs to the 4epu!lic of the Philippines.
/SS01. 8hether or not the land sought to !e registered is accretion or foreshore land
or whether or not said land was formed !$ the action of the two ri-ers of #alisa$ and
=ulacan or !$ the action of the 0anila =a$.
H1L2. .ccretion as a mode of acquiring propert$ under said .rticle D&7 requires the
concurrence of the following requisites< ?'@ that the accumulation of soil or sediment !e
gradual and impercepti!le> ?2@ that it !e the result of the action of the waters of the ri-er>
and ?5@ that the land where the accretion ta*es place is ad"acent to the !an* of the ri-er.
)f the accretion were to !e attri!uted to the action of either or !oth of the #alisa$ and
=ulacan 4i-ers the allu-ium should ha-e !een deposited on either or !oth of the
eastern and western !oundaries of petitionersE own tract of land not on the northern
portion thereof which is ad"acent to the 0anila =a$. Clearl$ lac*ing thus is the third
requisite of accretion which is that the allu-ium is deposited on the portion of claimantEs
land which is ad"acent to the ri-er !an*.
#he disputed land thus is an accretion not on a ri-er !an* !ut on a sea !an* or on
what used to !e the foreshore of 0anila =a$ which ad"oined petitionersE own tract of
land on the northern side. .pplicant Pascual has not presented proofs to con-ince the
Court that the land he has applied for registration is the result of the settling down on his
registered land of soil earth or other deposits so as to !e rightfull$ !e considered as an
accretion Ucaused !$ the action of the two ri-ersV. .rticle D&7 finds no applica!ilit$ where
the accretion must ha-e !een caused !$ action of the !a$.
#he conclusion formed !$ the trial court on the !asis of the aforegoing o!ser-ation is
that the disputed land is part of the foreshore of 0anila =a$ and therefore part of the
pu!lic domain. #hus the disputed propert$ is an accretion on a sea !an* 0anila =a$
&6
!eing an inlet or an arm of the sea> as such the disputed propert$ is under .rticle D of
the ;panish Law of 8aters of '8++ part of the pu!lic domain.
+%
2e )a4%o v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 7279!, 2e%ember 1, 1987, 157 S,R+ 55
;aras, (.
*+,-S. )n a document e,ecuted in the 0unicipalit$ of ;an 4afael =ulacan on
Be!ruar$ '' '8&6 three !rothers =enedicto Pansacola 2ose Pansacola and 0anuel
Pansacola ?*nown as Br. 0anuel Pena@ entered into an agreement which pro-ided
among others< ?'@ #hat the$ will purchase from the ;panish Go-ernment the lands
comprising the )sland of Cag!alite which is located within the !oundaries of the
0unicipalit$ of 0au!an Pro-ince of #a$a!as ?now Muezon@ and has an appro,imate
area of '+%% hectares> ?2@ #hat the lands shall !e considered after the purchase as
their common propert$> ?5@ #hat the co3ownership includes Aomingo .rce and
=aldomera .ngulo minors at that time represented !$ their father 0anuel Pansacola
?Br. 0anuel Pena@ who will contri!ute for them in the proposed purchase of the
Cag!alite )sland> ?D@ #hat whate-er !enefits ma$ !e deri-ed from the )sland shall !e
shared equall$ !$ the co3owners in the following proportion< =enedicto Pansacola3'HD
share> 2ose Pansacola3'HD share> and Aomingo .rce and =aldomera .ngulo32HD
shares which shall !e placed under the care of their father 0anuel Pansacola ?Br.
0anuel Pena@. 7n .ugust 'D '8++ co3owners entered into the actual possession and
en"o$ment of the )sland purchased !$ them from the ;panish Go-ernment. 7n .pril ''
'8+8 the$ agreed to modif$ the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into !$
them on Be!ruar$ '' '8&6.
.!out one hundred $ears later on No-em!er '8 '6+8 pri-ate respondents !rought a
special action for partition in the Court of Birst )nstance of Muezon under the pro-isions
of 4ule +6 of the 4ules of Court including as parties the heirs and successors3in3
interest of the co3owners of the Cag!alite )sland in the second contract of co3ownership
dated .pril '' '6+8. )n their answer some of the defendants petitioners herein
interposed such defenses as prescription res "udicata e,clusi-e ownership estoppel
and laches.
.fter trial on the merits the trial court rendered a decision dated No-em!er + '68'
dismissing the complaint. #he motion for reconsideration filed !$ the plaintiffs pri-ate
respondents herein was denied !$ the trial court in an order dated Be!ruar$ 2& '682.
7n appeal respondent Court re-ersed and set aside the decision of the lower court .)t
also denied the motion for reconsideration and the supplement to motion for
reconsideration filed !$ pri-ate respondents in its resolution dated 7cto!er '& '685.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not Cag!alite )sland is still undi-ided propert$ owned in common !$ the
heirs and successors3in3interest of the !rothers =enedicto 2ose and 0anuel
Pansacola.
2.@ 8hether or not a prescription ma$ run in fa-or of a co3owner against his co3 owners
or co3heirs.
+'
H1L2. '.@ 7n the first issue there is nothing in all four agreements that suggests that
actual or ph$sical partition of the )sland had reall$ !een made !$ either the original
owners or their heirs or successors3in3interest. #he agreement entered into in '8&6
simpl$ pro-ides for the sharing of whate-er !enefits can !e deri-ed from the island. #he
agreement in fact states that the )sland to !e purchased shall !e considered as their
common propert$. )n the second agreement entered in '8+8 the co3owners agreed not
onl$ on the sharing proportion of the !enefits deri-ed from the )sland !ut also on the
distri!ution of the )sland each of the !rothers was allocated a 'HD portion of the )sland
with the children of the deceased !rother :ustaquio Pansacola allocated a 'HD portion
and the children of 0anuel Pansacola ?Br. 0anuel Pena@ also allocated a 'HD portion of
the )sland. 8ith the distri!ution agreed upon each of the co3owner is a co3owner of the
whole and in this sense o-er the whole he e,ercises the right of dominion !ut he is at
the same time the sole owner of a portion in the instant case a 'HD portion ?for each
group of co3owners@ of the )sland which is trul$ a!stract !ecause until ph$sical di-ision
is effected such portion is merel$ an )deal share not concretel$ determined ?5 0anresa
Codigo Ci-il 5rd :d. page D8+ cited in Lopez -s. Cua$cong 7D Phil. +%'> Ae la Cruz
-s. Cruz 52 ;C4. 5%7 U'67%V> Belices -s. Colegado 5& ;C4. '75 U'67%V> Aultra -s.
CBl 7% ;C4. D+& U'67+V> Gatchalian -s. .rlegui 7& ;C4. 25D U'677V.@
)n the agreement of 2anuar$ 2% '6%7 the heirs that were represented agreed on how
the )sland was to !e partitioned. #he agreement of .pril '8 '6%8 which supplements
that of 2anuar$ 2% '6%7 re-eals that as of the signing of the '6%8 agreement no actual
partition of the )sland had as $et !een done. #he second and fourth paragraphs of the
agreement spea*s of a sur-e$ $et to !e conducted !$ a certain .madeo and a plan and
description $et to !e made. 1irgilio Pansacola a son of the sur-e$or named .madeo
who is referred to in the contract dated .pril '8 '6%8 as the sur-e$or to whom the tas*
of sur-e$ing Cag!alite )sland pursuant to said agreement was entrusted howe-er
testified that said contracts were ne-er implemented !ecause no!od$ defra$ed the
e,penses for sur-e$ing the same.
)t is not enough that the co3owners agree to su!di-ide the propert$. #he$ must ha-e a
su!di-ision plan drawn in accordance with which the$ ta*e actual and e,clusi-e
possession of their respecti-e portions in the plan and titles issued to each of them
accordingl$ ?Caro -s. Court of .ppeals ''5 ;C4. '% U'682V@. #he mechanics of actual
partition should follow the procedure laid down in 4ule +6 of the 4ules of Court.
0aganon -s. 0onte"o 'D+ ;C4. 282 U'68+V@.
Neither can such actual possession and en"o$ment of some portions of the )sland !$
some of the petitioners herein !e considered a repudiation of the co3ownership. )t is
undisputed that the Cag!alite )sland was purchased !$ the original co3owners as a
common propert$ and it has not !een pro-en that the )sland had !een partitioned
among them or among their heirs. 8hile there is co3ownership a co3ownerEs
possession of his share is co3possession which is lin*ed to the possession of the other
co3owners ?Gatchalian -s. .rlegui 7& ;C4. 25D U'677V@.
+2
2.@ 7n the second issue no prescription shall run in fa-or of a co3owner against his co3
owners or co3heirs so long as he e,pressl$ or impliedl$ recognizes the co3ownership
?1aldez -s. 7longa &' ;C4. 7' U'675V #ero -s. #ero '5' ;C4. '%% U'68DV@. Co3
owners cannot acquire !$ prescription the share of the other co3owners a!sent a clear
repudiation of the co3ownership clearl$ communicated to the other co3owners. .n action
for partition does not prescri!e. .rticle D%5 of the 7ld Ci-il Code now .rticle D67
pro-ides that the assignees of the co3owners ma$ ta*e part in the partition of the
common propert$ and .rticle D%% of the 7ld Code now .rticle D6D pro-ides that each
co3owner ma$ demand at an$ time the partition of the common propert$ a pro-ision
which implies that the action to demand partition is imprescripti!le or cannot !e !arred
!$ laches ?=udlong -s. Pondoc 76 ;C4. 2D U'677V@. .n action for partition does not lie
e,cept when the co3ownership is properl$ repudiated !$ the co3 owner.
+5
;arde v. )artoome
G.R. No. L-!757, November 18, 1912, 23 ;6$. !50
-orres, (.
*+,-S. Plaintiff 1icenta 7rtiz and defendant 0atilde 7rtiz are the dul$ recognized
natural daughters of the spouses 0iguel and Cali,ta who died in 1igan )locos ;ur. Prior
to the death of their mother she e,ecuted a will where!$ 0atilde and 1icenta !ecame
the heirs of all her propert$. ;u!sequentl$ defendants without "udicial authorization or
e,tra"udicial agreement too* o-er the administration and en"o$ment of the properties as
well as collection of the rents fruits and products thereof. 0oreo-er 0atilde and her
hus!and occupied the upper store$ of the house and the room of the lower floor as an
office. 8ith this 1icenta demanded that she !e gi-en rental pa$ments !$ 0atilde in
occup$ing the house since she is a co3owner of the propert$ not occup$ing the same
and as such is entitled to its en"o$ment andHor fruits.
/SS01. 8hether or not 1icenta can collect rentals from 0atilde who occupies and en"o$
the propert$ alone as a co3owner.
H1L2. No. #he law grants each co3owner the right to use the propert$ for the purpose
intended pro-ided that the interest of the co3ownership must not !e in"ured or pre"udiced
and the other co3owners must not !e pre-ented from using it according to their rights.
0atilde occupied the propert$ owned in common in accordance with the purpose for
which it is intended. 4ecords show no proof that she neither occasioned an$ detriment
to the interest of the communit$ propert$ nor pre-ented her sister from utilizing the said
propert$ in accordance to her right as a co3owner thereof. 0atilde was e,cercising her
right as a co3owner without !eing pre"udicial to 1icenta who could ha-e also occupied
her propert$ had she wanted to.
:ach co3owner of a propert$ has the right pro3indi-iso o-er the whole propert$ and ma$
use and en"o$ the same with no other limitation than that he shall not in"ure the interests
of his co3owners for the reason that until a di-ision is made the respecti-e part of each
holder of a right as a co3owner cannot !e determined and e-er$ co3owner e,ercises
"oint ownership o-er the pro3indi-iso propert$ in addition to his use and en"o$ment of the
same.
+D
,aro v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-!7001, 3ar%6 25, 1982, 113 S,R+ 10
G5errero, (.
*+,-S. .lfredo =enito 0ario =enito and =en"amin =enito were the original co3owners
of two parcels of land somewhere in ;orsogon. ;ometime in '6&7 0ario died. His wife
=asilia Lahorra and his father ;aturnino =enito were su!sequentl$ appointed as "oint
administrators of 0ario/s estate !$ the CB) of ;orsogon.
7n .ugust 2+ '6&6 =en"amin e,ecuted a deed of a!solute sale of his one3third
undi-ided portion o-er said parcels of land in fa-or of herein petitioner Luz Caro for the
sum of '%%%%.
;u!sequentl$ with the consent of ;aturnino =enito and .lfredo =enito as shown in their
affida-its a su!di-ision title was issued to petitioner Luz Caro o-er the lot.
;ometime in 0a$ '6++ when pri-ate respondent =asilia Lahorra learned from a
pleading sent to her that petitioner Luz Caro acquired from =en"amin =enito the
aforesaid one3third of the undi-ided share of the su!"ect lands. ;he sent to petitioner
thru counsel a written offer to redeem the said one3third share. Howe-er this offer was
ignored !$ the petitioner. Hence pri-ate respondent =asilia Lahorra filed a case for
legal redemption and sought to pro-e that as "oint administrator of the estate of 0ario
=enito she had not !een notified of the sale as required !$ articles '+2% and '+25 of
the Ci-il Code.
Auring the hearing of the case petitioner presented the following secondar$ e-idence to
pro-e the ser-ice of notice of the intended sale to possi!le redemptioners< ?'@ affida-it
of =en"amin =enito attesting to the fact that the possi!le redemptioners were formall$
notified in writing of his intention to sell his undi-ided share> ?2@ deposition of ;aturnino/s
widow that she recei-ed and showed the notice to hus!and !ut the latter was not
interested to !u$ the propert$.
#he trial court ruled in fa-or of the petitioner. Howe-er the decision was re-ersed !$ the
C.. Hence the case was !rought to the ;C.
/SS01. 8hether or not co3ownership on the lots in question still e,ist there!$ allowing
pri-ate respondent =asilia Lahorra to e,ercise the right of legal redemption.
H1L2. #he court held that as earl$ as '6+% co3ownership of the parcels of land
co-ered !$ #C# Nos. #3+%6 and #3+'% was terminated when .lfredo =enito Luz Caro
and the intestate estate of 0ario =enito represented !$ administrators ;aturnino
=enito as trustee and representati-e of the heirs of 0ario =enito agreed to su!di-ide
the propert$. )t added that an Iagreement of partition though oral is -alid and
consequentl$ !inding upon the parties.J
+&
. partition for su!di-ision was then filed for the purpose. #his was accompanied !$ the
affida-its of .lfredo =enito and ;aturnino =enito to the effect that the$ agree to the
segregation of the land owned in common !$ the three amigos. . su!di-ision plan was
made and !$ common agreement Lot '3C with an area of '+5 hectares was ceded to
petitioner to wit #C# no. #3D678.
)n addition notwithstanding the ruling in the Caram case wherein the sale of the
propert$ too* place after the partition agreement the court therein saw no difference
with respect to a con-e$ance which too* place !efore the partition agreement.
4egarding the contention of pri-ate respondent that she was not notified of the sale the
court ruled that since the right of legal redemption does not e,ist nor appl$ in this case
!ecause admittedl$ a su!di-ision title has alread$ !een issued in the name of the
petitioner on Lot '3C sold to her it !ecomes moot and academic. )t !ecomes
unnecessar$ to decide whether pri-ate respondent complied with the requirements for
the e,ercise of legal redemption under .rticle '+25 of the New Ci-il Code.
)a$o4 B ,as$ao v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 78178, +pr$ 15, 1988, 170 S,R+ 738
,ortes, (.
*+,-S. #he 4oman Catholic .rch!ishop UsicV of 0anila was the owner of a parcel of
land ?Lot No. '272 =alanga Cadastre@ situated in the =arrio of Puerto 4i-as
0unicipalit$ of =alanga =ataan ha-ing an area of 55+8 sq. m. more or less co-ered
!$ 7C# No. 'D576 of de 4egistr$ of Aeeds for the pro-ince of =ataan. 8ith respect to
its rights o-er its properties in =ataan ?inclusi-e of Lot No. '272@ the said church was
succeeded !$ the 4oman Catholic =ishop of ;an Bernando Pampanga which was
li*ewise succeeded !$ Catholic =ishop of =alanga G registered as a corporation on '&
Aecem!er '67&.Prior thereto or on 25 .ugust '65+ !$ -irtue of the authorit$ gi-en him
!$ the 4oman Catholic .rch!ishop of 0anila to donate a portion of Lot No. '272 the
then parish priest and administrator of all the properties of the said church in the
0unicipalit$ of =alanga =ataan 4e-. Br. 0ariano ;arili e,ecuted an :scritura Ae
Aonacion donating an area of '2.D% meters !$ 2'.D% meters or 2+&.5+ sq. m ?the
su!"ect propert$@ of Lot No. '272 to .na de los 4e$es and her heirs as a reward for her
long and satisfactor$ ser-ice to the church. Her acceptance of the donation as well as
her possession of the su!"ect propert$ is indicated in the deed of donation which deed
for un*nown reasons was refused registration !$ the 4egister of Aeeds. ;i, ?+@ $ears
later or in '656 .na de los 4e$es died without issue. Ne-ertheless !efore her death
she had gi-en the su!"ect propert$ to her nephew who had !een li-ing with her the
herein defendant3appellant Upri-ate respondentV. #he latter immediatel$ too* possession
of the propert$ in the concept of owner !uilt his house thereon and through the $ears
declared the land for ta,ation purposes as well as paid the ta,es due thereon. His
possession of the su!"ect propert$ was ne-er distur!ed !$ an$!od$ until plaintiff3
++
appellee UpetitionerV filed the instant complaint against him on & No-em!er '68& or
more than D6 $ears after the deed of donation was e,ecuted.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner is !arred to reco-er the propert$ !$ the doctrine of
laches.
H1L2. 9es. Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasona!le and une,plained
length of time to do that which !$ e,ercising due diligence could or should ha-e !een
done earlier> it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona!le time
warranting the presumption that the part$ entitled to assert it either has a!andoned or
declined to assert it. )t has also !een defined as such neglect or omission to assert a
right ta*en in con"unction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing
pre"udice to an ad-erse part$ as will operate as a !ar in equit$.

#he following are the
essential elements of laches< ?'@ Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under
whom he claims gi-ing rise to the situation complained of> ?2@ Aela$ in asserting
complainantEs right after he had *nowledge of the defendantEs conduct and after he has
an opportunit$ to sue> ?5@ Lac* of *nowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that
the complainant would assert the right on which he !ases his suit> and ?D@ )n"ur$ or
pre"udice to the defendant in the e-ent relief is accorded to the complainant.
32
Cnder
the present circumstances all of the aforegoing elements are attendant in this case.
Binall$ we agree with the respondent Court of .ppeals that while petitioner is
admittedl$ still the registered owner of the donated propert$ and "urisprudence is
settled as to the imprescripti!ilit$ and indefeasi!ilit$ of a #orrens #itle there is equall$
an a!undance of cases in the annals of our "urisprudence where we categoricall$ ruled
that a registered landowner ma$ lose his right to reco-er the possession of his
registered propert$ !$ reason of laches.

RoD5e v. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. L-75887, +5g5st 30, 1988, 175 S,R+ 118
*e$%$a4o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner Concepcion 4oque on + Aecem!er '677 filed a Complaint for
FPartition with ;pecific PerformanceF ?doc*eted as Ci-il Case No. &25+30@ with =ranch
2 of the then Court of Birst )nstance of 0alolos against respondents :mesto 4oque and
the heirs of 1ictor 4oque. )n her complaint petitioner ?plaintiff !elow@ claimed legal
ownership of an undi-ided three3fourths ?5HD@ portion of Lot No. '&D6 !$ -irtue of the 27
No-em!er '6+' F=ilihan Lu!os at Patulu$anF e,ecuted in her fa-or !$ :mesto 4oque
and 1ictor 4oque.
)n support of this claim petitioner also presented an undated and unnotarized
FSasulatang Pag*ilala sa =ilihan Patulu$an ng =ahagui at Pagmamana sa La!as ng
Hu*uman at Paghahati3hati at .!u$an ng =ahaguiF said to ha-e !een signed !$ the
respondents in ac*nowledgment of the e,istence and -alidit$ of the =ilihan in fa-or of
+7
petitioner. Binall$ petitioner alleged that as a co3owner of Lot No. '&D6 she had a right
to see* partition of the propert$ that she could not !e compelled to remain in the co3
ownership of the same. 4espondents :rnesto 4oque and the legal heirs of 1ictor
4oque howe-er refused to ac*nowledge petitionerEs claim of ownership of an$ portion
of Lot No. '&D6 and re"ected the plan to di-ide the land.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner can !e compelled to remain in the co3ownership.
H1L2. No. .rticle D6D of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that Fno co3owner shall !e o!liged to
remain in the co3ownershipF and that Feach co3owner ma$ demand at an$ time the
partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned.F #he facts on
record clearl$ show that petitioner Concepcion 4oque had !een in actual open and
continuous possession of a three3fourths ?5HD@ portion of Lot No. '&D6 e-er since
e,ecution of the F=ilihan Lu!os at Patulu$anF in No-em!er of '6+'. #he Court notes
that it was onl$ in their .nswer with Compulsor$ Counterclaim filed with the trial court in
Aecem!er of '677 G more than si,teen ?'+@ $ears later G that respondents first
questioned the genuineness and authenticit$ of the F=ilihan Lu!os at Patulu$an.F Not
once during those si,teen ?'+@ $ears did respondents contest petitionerEs occupation of
a three3fourths ?5HD@ portion of Lot No. '&D6.
Burthermore if indeed it is true that respondents as the$ claim are the a!solute owners
of the whole of Lot No. '&D6 it is most unusual that respondents would ha-e allowed or
tolerated such prolonged occupation !$ petitioner of a ma"or portion ?5HD@ of the land
while the$ upon the other hand contented themsel-es with occupation of onl$ a fourth
thereof. #his latter circumstance coupled with the passage of a -er$ su!stantial length
of time during which petitioner all the while remained undistur!ed and uninterrupted in
her occupation and possession places respondents here in laches< respondents ma$
no longer dispute the e,istence of the co3ownership !etween petitioner and themsel-es
nor the -alidit$ of petitionerEs claim of a threefourths ?5HD@ interest in Lot No. '&D6 as
the$ are deemed !$ their unreasona!l$ long inaction to ha-e acquiesced in the co3
ownership.
2e$ma v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G. R. No. L-!7297, September 2!, 1991, 201 S,R+ 7!1
3ed$adea (.
*+,-S. Lino Aelima acquired a lot from the friar lands. Later he died lea-ing as his
onl$ heirs three !rothers and sisters namel$< :ulalio Aelima 2uanita Aelima Galileo
Aelima and 1icente Aelima. Galileo was the careta*er of the propert$. He was a!le to
e,ecute an affida-it ad"usting to himself the parcel of land and was a!le to secure the
issuance of a #ransfer Certificate of #itle in his name. #his prompted the heirs of his
si!lings to file a action for recon-e$ance.
/SS01. 8hether or not the propert$ is su!"ect to prescription.
+8
H1L2. 9es. Brom the moment one of the co3owners claims that he is the a!solute and
e,clusi-e owner of the properties and denies the others an$ share therein the question
in-ol-ed is no longer one of partition !ut of ownership. )n such case the
imprescripti!ilit$ of the action for partition can no longer !e in-o*ed or applied when one
of the co3owners has ad-ersel$ possessed the propert$ as e,clusi-e owner for a period
sufficient to -est ownership !$ prescription. )t is settled that possession !$ the co3owner
or co3heir is that of a trutee. )n order that such possession is considered ad-erse to the
cestui que trust amounting to a repudiation of the co3ownership the following elements
must concur< '@ that the trustee has performed unequi-ocal acts amounting to an ouster
of cestui que trust> 2@ that such positi-e acts of repudiation had !een made *nown to the
cestui que trust> and 5@ that the e-idence thereon should !e clear and conclusi-e.
8hen the co3owner of the propert$ e,ecuted a deed of partition and on the strength
thereof o!tained a cancellation of the title in the name of their predecessor and the
issuance of a new title in his name as the owner the statute of limitations started to run
for the purposes of the action instituted !$ the latter see*ing a declaration of the
e,istence of the co3ownership and their rights thereafter. #he issuance of a new title
constituted a clear act of repudiation of the trust and co3ownership.
+g5$ar v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 77351, "%tober 29, 1993, 227 S,R+ !72
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner 1irgilio and respondent ;enen are !rothers and were among the
se-en ?7@ children of the late 0a,imiano .guilar. )n '6+6 the two !rothers purchased a
house and lot in ParaNaque where their father could spend and en"o$ his remaining
$ears in a peaceful neigh!orhood. )nitiall$ the !rothers agreed that 1irgilioEs share in
the co3ownership was two3thirds while that of ;enen was one3third. =$ -irtue of a written
memorandum 1irgilio and ;enen agreed that henceforth their interests in the house
and lot should !e equal with ;enen assuming the remaining mortgage o!ligation of the
original owners with the ;;; in e,change for his possession and en"o$ment of the
house together with their father. ;ince 1irgilio was then disqualified from o!taining a
loan from ;;; the !rothers agreed that the deed of sale would !e e,ecuted and the
title registered in the meantime in the name of ;enen. )t was further agreed that ;enen
would ta*e care of their father and his needs since 1irgilio and his famil$ were sta$ing in
Ce!u.
.fter 0a,imiano .guilar died in '67D petitioner demanded from pri-ate respondent that
the latter -acate the house and that the propert$ !e sold and proceeds thereof di-ided
among them. =ecause of the refusal of respondent to gi-e in to petitionerEs demands
the latter filed an action to compel the sale of the house and lot so that the the$ could
di-ide the proceeds !etween them. )n his complaint petitioner pra$ed that the proceeds
of the sale !e di-ided on the !asis of two3thirds ?2H5@ in his fa-or and one3third ?'H5@ to
+6
respondent. Petitioner also pra$ed for monthl$ rentals for the use of the house !$
respondent after their father died. )n his answer with counterclaim respondent alleged
that he had no o!"ection to the sale as long as the !est selling price could !e o!tained>
that if the sale would !e effected the proceeds thereof should !e di-ided equall$> and
that !eing a co3owner he was entitled to the use and en"o$ment of the propert$.
4endering "udgment !$ default against defendant for failure to appear at pre3 trial the
trial court found him and plaintiff to !e co3owners of the house and lot in equal shares
on the !asis of their written agreement. Howe-er it ruled that plaintiff has !een depri-ed
of his participation in the propert$ !$ defendantEs continued en"o$ment of the house and
lot free of rent despite demands for rentals and continued maneu-ers of defendants to
dela$ partition. #he trial court also upheld the right of plaintiff as co3owner to demand
partition. ;ince plaintiff could not agree to the amount offered !$ defendant for the
formerEs share the trial court held that this propert$ should !e sold to a third person and
the proceeds di-ided equall$ !etween the parties. #he C. set aside the order of the trial
court.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner ma$ demand partition of the propert$.
H1L2. 9es. 8e uphold the trial court in ruling in fa-or of petitioner e,cept as to the
effecti-it$ of the pa$ment of monthl$ rentals !$ respondent as co3owner which we here
declare to commence onl$ after the trial court ordered respondent to -acate in
accordance with its order. .rticle D6D of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that no co3owner shall
!e o!liged to remain in the co3ownership and that each co3owner ma$ demand at an$
time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollar$
to this rule .rt. D68 of the Code states that whene-er the thing is essentiall$ indi-isi!le
and the co3owners cannot agree that it !e allotted to one of them who shall indemnif$
the others it shall !e sold and its proceeds accordingl$ distri!uted. #his is resorted to
?'@ when the right to partition the propert$ is in-o*ed !$ an$ of the co3owners !ut
!ecause of the nature of the propert$ it cannot !e su!di-ided or its su!di-ision would
pre"udice the interests of the co3owners and ?!@ the co3owners are not in agreement as
to who among them shall !e allotted or assigned the entire propert$ upon proper
reim!ursement of the co3owners. Howe-er !eing a co3owner respondent has the right
to use the house and lot without pa$ing an$ compensation to petitioner as he ma$ use
the propert$ owned in common long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it
is intended and in a manner not in"urious to the interest of the other co3owners. 6 :ach
co3owner of propert$ held pro indi-iso e,ercises his rights o-er the whole propert$ and
ma$ use and en"o$ the same with no other limitation than that he shall not in"ure the
interests of his co3owners the reason !eing that until a di-ision is made the respecti-e
share of each cannot !e determined and e-er$ co3owner e,ercises together with his
co3participants "oint ownership o-er the pro indi-iso propert$ in addition to his use and
en"o$ment of the same.
;ince petitioner has decided to enforce his right in court to end the co3ownership of the
house and lot and respondent has not refuted the allegation that he has !een
pre-enting the sale of the propert$ !$ his continued occupanc$ of the premises "ustice
and equit$ demand that respondent and his famil$ -acate the propert$ so that the sale
7%
can !e effected immediatel$. )n fairness to petitioner respondent should pa$ a rental of
P'2%%.%% per month with legal interest> from the time the trial court ordered him to
-acate for the use and en"o$ment of the other half of the propert$ appertaining to
petitioner. 8hen petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the propert$ and the trial
court granted the petition and ordered the e"ectment of respondent the co3ownership
was deemed terminated and the right to en"o$ the possession "ointl$ also ceased.
#hereafter the continued sta$ of respondent and his famil$ in the house pre"udiced the
interest of petitioner as the propert$ should ha-e !een sold and the proceeds di-ided
equall$ !etween them. #o this e,tent and from then on respondent should !e held
lia!le for monthl$ rentals until he and his famil$ -acate.
-omas ,a5d$o 3emor$a ,oege v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 12!272, "%tober 12, 1999, 317 S,R+ 502
<5$s$mb$4g, (.
*+,-S. 2uan Ae Castro died intestate in '665 lea-ing a parcel of land located in
0orong 4izal to his heirs. 0ariano Ae Castro one of the heirs sold the said lot to
petitioner #omas Claudio 0emorial College !$ representing that he is the sole owner of
the propert$. #he other heirs filed an action for partition !efore the 4egional #rial Court
of 4izal alleging that the sale made !$ 0ariano affected onl$ his undi-ided share of the
lot !ut not the shares of the other co3owners. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
partition for the reason that it has alread$ !een !arred !$ prescription.
#he 4egional #rial Court of 4izal dismissed the petitioner/s motion. #he Court of
.ppeals affirmed the decision.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not the sale affected onl$ the undi-ided share of 0ariano
2.@ 8hether or not the action to file for partition has alread$ prescri!ed.
H1L2. '.@ 9es. #he Court has consistentl$ ruled that e-en if a co3owner sells the whole
propert$ as his the sale will affect onl$ his own share !ut not those of the other co3
owners who did not consent to the sale. #he sale of the whole propert$ !$ a co3owner
does not ma*e the sale null and -oid !ut it onl$ transfers the rights to the undi-ided
share of the co3owner who made the sale. #he proper action in a case li*e this is not
nullification nor reco-er$ !ut a di-ision or partition of the entire propert$.
2.@ No. .s to the issue on prescription the Ci-il Code pro-ides that no prescription shall
lie in fa-or of a co3owner or co3heirs as long as he e,pressl$ or impliedl$ recognizes the
co3ownership.
Robes v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
7'
GR. No. 123509, 3ar%6 1!, 2000, 328 S,R+ 97
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. Leon 4o!les originall$ owned the land which was inherited !$ his son ;il-ino
4o!les. #he latter then too* possession of the land and declared it in his name for
ta,ation purposes. Cpon his death the same was inherited !$ his widow 0aria dela
Cruz and his children. #he plaintiffs entrusted the pa$ment of the land ta,es to their co3
heir and half3!rother Hilario #o!les. Bor un*nown reasons the ta, declaration of the
parcel of land in the name of ;il-ino 4o!les was cancelled and transferred to one
:,equiel =allena father of .ndres 4o!les who is the wife of the defendant Hilario
4o!les. He secured a loan from the Cardona 4ural =an* )nc. which was foreclosed for
failure to pa$ the mortgage de!t wherein the defendant !an* emerged as the highest
!idder during the auction sale. Aefendant 4ural =an* sold the same to the ;pouses
;antos. . n action for quieting of title was filed !$ respondent ;antos. #he plaintiffs
alleged that the$ had !een in possession of the land since '6D2 and it was onl$ in '687
that the$ *new a!out the foreclosure of the mortgage. #he Court of .ppeals ruled that
!ecause of the plaintiff/s inaction for more than 2% $ears prescription had alread$ set in.
/SS01. 8hether or not the action has prescri!ed in fa-our of Hilario 4o!les.
H1L2. 9es. Hilario effected no clear and e-ident repudiation of the co3ownership. )t is a
fundamental principle that a co3owner cannot acquire !$ prescription the share of the
other co3owners a!sent an$ clear repudiation of the co3ownership. )n order that the title
ma$ prescri!e in fa-or of a co3owner the following requisites must concur< ?'@ the co3
owner has performed unequi-ocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the
other co3owners> ?2@ such positi-e acts of repudiation ha-e !een made *nown to the
other co3owner> and ?5@ the e-idence thereof is clear and con-incing. )n the present
case Hilario did not ha-e possession of the su!"ect propert$> neither did he e,clude the
petitioners from the use and the en"o$ment thereof as the$ had indisputa!l$ shared in
its fruits. Li*ewise his act of entering into a mortgage contract with the !an* cannot !e
construed to !e a repudiation of the co3ownership. .s a!solute owner of his undi-ided
interest in the land he had the right to alienate his share as he in fact did. Neither
should his pa$ment of land ta,es in his name as agreed upon !$ the co3owners !e
construed as a repudiation of the co3ownership. #he assertion that the declaration of
ownership was tantamount to repudiation was !elied !$ the continued occupation and
possession of the disputed propert$ !$ the petitioners as owners.
Gave& vs. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 15795!, 3ar%6 2!, 2007
,6$%o B Na&ar$o, (.
*+,-S. #imotea B. Gal-ez died intestate and left a parcel of land in La Cnion. ;he left
!ehind her children Clpiano and petitioner Paz Gal-ez. Clpiano who died !efore
#imotea was sur-i-ed !$ his son pri-ate respondent Porfirio Gal-ez. 8ith regards to
72
the propert$ of #imotea it is supposed to pass to Paz and Porfirio. Howe-er Porifirio
was surprised to disco-er that Paz e,ecuted an affida-it of ad"udication stating that she
is the true and lawful owner of the said propert$. 0oreo-er without the *nowledge and
consent of Porfirio Paz sold the propert$ to petitioner Carlos #am for P'%%%%.%%. #am
thereafter filed an application for registration for said parcel of land. ;u!sequentl$ #am
sold the propert$ to #$coon Properties )nc. Ha-ing *nowledge of such sale Porfirio
filed a complaint for Legal 4edemption with Aamages and Cancellation of documents
against petitioner which was affirmed !$ the lower court and the Court of .ppeals.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not the claim of Porfirio Gal-ez which is !ased on an implied trust
has alread$ prescri!ed !ecause the action was filed 2D $ears after Paz Gal-ez
repudiated the said trustW
2.@ 8hether or not the claim of Porfirio Gal-ez which is !ased on an implied trust is
alread$ !anned !$ laches !ecause he failed to assert his alleged right for almost 2D
$earsW
5.@ 8hether or not Carlos #am and #$coon Properties are !u$ers in good faith and
for -alue and has the right to rel$ on the face of the titleW
H1L2. '.@ No. .rticle D6D of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that Fa prescription shall not run in
fa-or of a co3owner or co3heir against his co3owners or co3heirs as long as he e,pressl$
or impliedl$ recognizes the co3ownership.F )t is a fundamental principle that a co3owner
cannot acquire !$ prescription the share of the other co3owners a!sent an$ clear
repudiation of the co3ownership. Prescription as a mode of terminating a relation of co3
ownership must ha-e !een preceded !$ repudiation ?of the co3ownership@. #he act of
repudiation in turn is su!"ect to certain conditions< ?'@ a co3owner repudiates the co3
ownership> ?2@ such an act of repudiation is clearl$ made *nown to the other co3owners>
?5@ the e-idence thereon is clear and conclusi-e> and ?D@ he has !een in possession
through open continuous e,clusi-e and notorious possession of the propert$ for the
period required !$ law. )n this case we find that Paz Gal-ez effected no clear and
e-ident repudiation of the co3ownership. #he e,ecution of the affida-it of self3
ad"udication does not constitute such sufficient act of repudiation as contemplated
under the law as to effecti-el$ e,clude Porfirio Gal-ez from the propert$. #his Court has
repeatedl$ e,pressed its disappro-al o-er the o!-ious !ad faith of a co3heir feigning
sole ownership of the propert$ to the e,clusion of the other heirs essentiall$ stating that
one who acts in !ad faith should not !e permitted to profit from it to the detriment of
others.
2.@ No. 7n the matter of laches it is horn!oo* doctrine that laches is a creation of equit$
and its application is controlled !$ equita!le considerations. Laches cannot !e used to
defeat "ustice or perpetrate fraud and in"ustice. Neither should its application !e used to
pre-ent the rightful owners of a propert$ from reco-ering what has !een fraudulentl$
registered in the name of another. #he equita!le remed$ of laches is therefore
una-ailing in this case.
75
5.@ No. .s to petitioners Carlos #am and #$coon Properties )nc./s claim that the$ are
!u$ers in good faith same fails to persuade. . purchaser in good faith and for -alue is
one who !u$s the propert$ without notice that some other person has a right to or
interest in such propert$ and pa$s its fair price !efore he has notice of the ad-erse
claims and interest of another person in the same propert$. ;o it is that the Fhonest$ of
intentionF which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from *nowledge of
circumstances which ought to put a person on inquir$. F#am did not e,ert efforts to
determine the pre-ious ownership of the propert$ in questionF and relied onl$ on the ta,
declarations in the name of Paz Gal-ez. )t must !e noted that Carlos #am recei-ed a
cop$ of the summons and the complaint on 22 ;eptem!er '66D. #his notwithstanding
he sold the propert$ to #$coon Properties )nc. on 27 ;eptem!er '66D. ;ignificantl$
Carlos #am is also an owner of #$coon Properties )nc. to the e,tent of D&(. . notice of
lis pendens dated 8 2ul$ '667 filed with the 4egistr$ of Aeeds of the Pro-ince of La
Cnion was inscri!ed on #C# No. #3 D%56%. Aespite the inscription #$coon Properties
)nc. mortgaged the land to Bar :ast =an* and #rust Compan$ for the sum of
P'''72+%%. .ll these attendant circumstances negate petitioners/ claim of good faith.
+d$e vs. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-!55!7, (a45ar' 29, 1988
Sarm$e4to, (.
*+,-S. Belisa .lzul who owned a parcel of lot in .l!a$ was married twice. #he first was
with =erna!e .dille whom she had an onl$ child herein petitioner 4ustico .dille. #he
second was with Procopio .se"o whom she had three children herein the pri-ate
respondents. )t was alleged that Belisa sold the propert$ in pacto de retro to certain 5
rd
persons for a period of repurchase !eing 5 $ears. Howe-er she died without !eing a!le
to redeem the lot. .fter her death !ut during the period of redemption petitioner 4ustico
repurchased !$ himself alone the said lot. .fterwards he e,ecuted a deed of e,tra3
"udicial partition !$ himself. :fforts to compromise were made !ut failed. #hus his half3
!rothers and sisters pri-ate respondents filed a present case of partition with accounting
on the position that he was onl$ a trustee on an implied trust when he redeemed the lot.
0oreo-er it turned out that one of the pri-ate respondents :meteria .se"o was
occup$ing a portion. #he lower court was in fa-or of the petitioner> howe-er it was
re-ersed !$ the Court of .ppeals.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not a co3owner can acquire an e,clusi-e ownership o-er the propert$
held in common.
2.@ 8hether or not prescription has set in.
H1L2. '.@ No. #he right of repurchase ma$ !e e,ercised !$ a co3owner with aspect to
his share alone. 8hile the records show that the petitioner redeemed the propert$ in its
entiret$ shouldering the e,penses therefore that did not ma*e him the owner of all of it.
)n other words it did not put to end the e,isting state of co3ownership. Necessar$
7D
e,penses ma$ !e incurred !$ one co3owner su!"ect to his right to collect
reim!ursement from the remaining co3owners. #here is no dou!t that redemption of
propert$ entails a necessar$ e,pense. Cnder .rticle D88 of the Ci-il Code it pro-ides
that each co3owner shall ha-e a right to compel the other co3owners to contri!ute to the
e,penses of preser-ation of the thing or right owned in common and to the ta,es. .n$
one of the latter ma$ e,empt himself from this o!ligation !$ renouncing so much of his
undi-ided interest as ma$ !e equi-alent to his share of the e,penses and ta,es. No
such wai-er shall !e made if it is pre"udicial to the co3ownership. #he result is that the
propert$ remains to !e in a condition of co3ownership. 8hile a -endee a retro under
.rticle '+'5 of the Code Ima$ not !e compelled to consent to a partial redemptionJ the
redemption !$ one co3heir or co3owner of the propert$ in its totalit$ does not -est him
ownership o-er it. Bailure on the part of all the co3owners to redeem it entitles the
-endee a retro to retain the propert$ and consolidate title thereto in his name. =ut the
pro-ision does not gi-e to the redeeming co3owner the right to the entire propert$. )t
does not pro-ide for a mode of terminating a co3ownership. Neither does the fact that
the petitioner had succeeded in securing title o-er the parcel in his name terminate the
e,isting co3ownership. 8hile his half3!rothers and sisters are as we said lia!le to him
for reim!ursement as and for their shares in redemption e,penses he cannot claim
e,clusi-e right to the propert$ owned in common. 4egistration of propert$ is not a
means of acquiring ownership. )t operates as a mere notice of e,isting title that is if
there is one.
2.@ 8e hold in the negati-e. Prescription as a mode of terminating a relation of co3
ownership must ha-e !een preceded !$ repudiation ?of the co3ownership@. #he act of
repudiation in turn is su!"ect to certain conditions< ?'@ a co3owner repudiates the co3
ownership> ?2@ such an act of repudiation is clearl$ made *nown to the other co3owners>
?5@ the e-idence thereon is clear and conclusi-e and ?D@ he has !een in possession
through open continuous e,clusi-e and notorious possession of the propert$ for the
period required !$ law. #he instant case shows that the petitioner had not complied with
these requisites. 8e are not con-inced that he had repudiated the co3ownership> on the
contrar$ he had deli!eratel$ *ept the pri-ate respondents in the dar* !$ feigning sole
heirship o-er the estate under dispute. He cannot therefore !e said to ha-e Fmade
*nownF his efforts to den$ the co3ownership. 0oreo-er one of the pri-ate respondents
:meteria .se"o is occup$ing a portion of the land up to the present> $et the petitioner
has not ta*en pains to e"ect her therefrom. .s a matter of fact he sought to reco-er
possession of that portion :meteria is occup$ing onl$ as a counterclaim and onl$ after
the pri-ate respondents had first sought "udicial relief.
+daEa4 vs. +daEa4
G.R. No. 171917, (a45ar' 20, 2007
>4ares B Sa4t$ago, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner .rnelito .dlawan the ac*nowledged illegitimate child of Aominador
.dlawan filed an e"e"ctment suit against the si!lings of his father respondents Narcisa
7&
and :meterio .dlawan. =eing the sole heir of Aominador he e,ecuted an affida-it
ad"udicating the house and lot owned !$ his father. Howe-er he alleged that out of
respect and generosit$ to respondents he granted their plea to occup$ the su!"ect
propert$ pro-ided the$ would -acate the same should his need for the propert$ arise.
Later when he -er!all$ requested respondents to -acate the house and lot the$
refused and filed instead an action for quieting of title. He then also filed a complaint for
e"ectment. )n answer the respondents 7% and &6 $ears of age respecti-el$ denied that
the$ !egged petitioner to allow them to sa$ on the propert$ since the$ ha-e !een
sta$ing there since !irth. #he$ claimed that the said lot was originall$ registered in the
name of their deceased parents 4amon and 7ligia .dlawan. ;pouses 4amon and
7ligia needed mone$ to finance the reno-ation of their house. ;ince the$ were not
qualified to o!tain a loan the$ transferred ownership of the lot to Aominador who was
the onl$ one in the famil$ who had a college education. Aominador and his wife
Graciana did not distur! respondents/ possession of the propert$ until the$ died. #he$
also argued that e-en if petitioner is indeed Aominador/s ac*nowledged illegitimate son
his right to succeed is dou!tful !ecause Aominador was sur-i-ed !$ his wife Graciana.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioner can -alidl$ maintain the instant case of e"ectment.
H1L2. No. Petitioner a-erred that he is an ac*nowledged illegitimate son and the sole
heir of Aominador. Howe-er the 4#C lost sight of the fact that the theor$ of succession
in-o*ed !$ petitioner would end up pro-ing that he is not the sole owner of the su!"ect
lot. #his so !ecause Aominador was sur-i-ed not onl$ !$ petitioner !ut also !$ his legal
wife Graciana who died '% $ears after the death of Aominador. =$ intestate
succession Graciana and petitioner !ecame co3owners of the su!"ect lot and house.
Petitioner then contended that e-en granting that he is a co3owner he can file the
instant case pursuant to .rticle D87 of the Ci-il Code. #his article co-ers all *inds of
actions for the reco-er$ of possession. )t includes forci!le entr$ and unlawful detainer
?accion interdictal@ reco-er$ of possession ?accion pu!liciana@ and reco-er$ of
ownership ?accion de rein-indicacion@. . co3owner ma$ !ring such action without the
necessit$ of "oining all the other co3owners as co3plaintiffs !ecause the suit is presumed
to ha-e !een filed to !enefit his co3owners. )t should !e stressed howe-er that where
the suit is for the !enefit of the petitioner alone who claims to !e the sole owner and
entitled to the possession of the litigated propert$ the action should !e dismissed.
.ccording to the renowned ci-ilest Professor .rturo 0. #olentino he e,plained that Ia
co3owner ma$ !ring such an action without the necessit$ of "oining all the other co3
owners as co3plaintiffs !ecause the suit is deemed to !e instituted for the !enefit of all.
)f the action is for the !enefit of the plaintiff alone such that he claims possession for
himself and not for the co3ownership the action will not prosper. )n this case it is not
disputed that petitioner !rought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name alone and for
his own !enefit to the e,clusion of the heirs of Graciana as he e-en e,ecuted an
affida-it of self3ad"udication o-er the disputed propert$. )t is clear therefore that
petitioner cannot -alidl$ maintain the instant action considering that he does not
recognize the co3ownership that necessaril$ flows from his theor$ of succession to the
propert$ of his father Aominador.
7+
S5m$pat v. )a4ga
G.R. No. 155810, +5g5st 13, 200!
-$4ga, (.
*+,-S. #he spouses Placida #a!o3ta!o and Lauro ;umipat acquired three parcels of
land. #he couple was childless. Lauro ;umipat howe-er sired fi-e illegitimate children.
#he$ are the petitioners herein. Lauro e,ecuted a document denominated IAeed of
.!solute #ransfer andHor Muit3Claim o-er 4eal PropertiesJ in fa-or of the petitioners. 7n
the document it appears that the signature of his wife Placida which indicates that she
ga-e her marital consent. 0oreo-er it was alleged that Lauro e,ecuted it when he was
alread$ -er$ sic* and !edridden that upon petitioner L$dia/s request their neigh!or
=en"amin 4i-era lifted the !od$ of Lauro whereupon L$dia guided his hand in affi,ing
his signature on the document. L$dia left !ut later returned on the same da$ and
requested Lauro/s unlettered wife Placida to sign on the said document. .fter Lauro/s
death his wife Placida and petitioners "ointl$ administered the properties &%( of the
produce went to his wife. .s wife/s share in the produce of the properties dwindled she
filed a complaint for declaration of partition disclaiming an$ partition in the e,ecution of
the su!"ect document.
/SS01. 8hether or not a co3ownership was formed from the said deed.
H1L2. No. . perusal of the deed re-eals that it is actuall$ a gratuitous disposition of
propert$ G a donation G although Lauro ;umipat imposed upon the petitioners the
condition that he and his wife Placida shall !e entitled to one3half ?'H2@ of all the fruits
or produce of the parcels of land for their su!sistence and support. 8here the deed of
donation fails to show the acceptance or where the formal notice of the acceptance
made in a separate instrument is either not gi-en to the donor or else not noted in the
deed of donation and in the separate acceptance the donation is null and -oid. )n this
case the donees/ acceptance of the donation is not manifested either in the deed itself
or in a separate document. Hence the deed as an instrument of donation is patentl$
-oid. #he Court declared that the deeds of sale questioned therein are not merel$
-oida!le !ut null and -oid a! initio as the supposed seller declared under oath that she
signed the deeds without *nowing what the$ were. #he significant circumstance meant
the Court added that her consent was not merel$ marred !$ -ices of consent so as to
ma*e the contracts -oida!le !ut that she had not gi-en her consent at all.
77
R$&a ,eme4t ,o., /4%. v. V$area
G.R. No. L-30272, *ebr5ar' 28, 1985, 135 S,R+ 15
,5evas, (.
*+,-S. 4espondents are applicants for the registration of two agricultural lands located
in 4izal. #he$ presented testimonial and documentar$ e-idence appearing that the
propert$ applied for designated as Lot Nos. ' and 2 of Plan Psu3'D7++2 ha-e a total
area of 2+%'& sq. m.> that these lots originall$ !elong to one 0aria Certeza> that upon
her death the propert$ was in-ol-ed in a litigation !etween her grandchildren and
Gonzalo Certeza and that the lots were gi-en !$ the latter to 2ustice de 2o$a as the
latter/s attorne$/s fees> that the lots were then sold !$ de 2o$a to Bilomeno ;ta. .na
who in turn sold the same to spouses 1ictoriano Cer-o and )gnacia Guillermo in '656>
that sometime in No-em!er '6&& the said spouses sold the lots to herein applicants as
shown !$ a dul$ notarized deed of sale. #he spouses Cer-o declared the propert$ for
ta,ation purposes in the name of the wife )gnacia Guillermo and paid for the realt$
ta,es thereon> that prior to the sale the spouses Cer-o had the two lots sur-e$ed first in
'6&% and then in '6&&. 7n the other hand oppositor ?4izal Cement Compan$@ claims to
!e the owner of the su!"ect lots ha-ing !ought the same from 0aria Certeza and to
ha-e !een in continuous and ad-erse possession of the propert$ since '6''. #o
su!stantiate this claim petitioner su!mitted documentar$ e-idence one of which is a
ta, declaration of the said lots. #he Court of Birst )nstance denied the application for
registration of respondents and ordered the issuance of a decree of registration in the
name of 4izal Cement Co. after finalit$ of said decision. 7n appeal the Court of
.ppeals re-ersed and set aside the decision of the CB). #he C. denied petitioner/s
motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition was filed.
/SS01. 8hether or not respondents had !een in actual possession of the land in
question.
H1L2. 9es. #he C. ga-e credence to the testimon$ of the witnesses for respondents.
.s a general rule it is pro-ided in the Ci-il Code that possession is acquired !$ the
material occupation of a thing or the e,ercise of a right or !$ the fact that it is su!"ect to
the action of our will or !$ the proper acts or legal formalities esta!lished for acquiring
such right. Petitioner/s e-idence consisting of ta, receipts ta, declaration and sur-e$
plan are not conclusi-e and indisputa!le !asis of one/s ownership of the propert$ in
question. .ssessment alone is of little -alue as proof of title. 0ere ta, declaration does
not -est ownership of the propert$ upon defendant.
9o4g v. ,arp$o
G.R. No. 5027!, "%tober 21, 1991, 203 S,R+ 118
)$d$4, (.
*+,-S. 8illiam Giger sold a parcel of land through a pacto de recto sale to 0anuel
0ercado. 0ercado onl$ !egan to har-est the coconut fruits !ut he ne-er placed an$one
78
o-er the land to watch it. Neither did he reside in the land nor was there an$ hut
constructed thereon to show possession. #hereafter )gnacio 8ong inspected the land
to see if whether there was an$one claiming the land. .fter finding there was none he
!ought the land from Giger. He placed wor*ers on the land constructed a farmhouse
and fenced the !oundaries. He couldnEt register the sale due to some technicalities.
/SS01. 8hether or not the possession of the disputed land !elongs to )gnacio 8ong.
H1L2. )t should !e stressed that Fpossession is acquired !$ the material occupation of
a thing or the e,ercise of a right or !$ the fact that it is su!"ect to the action of our will
or !$ the proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right.F .nd that the
e,ecution of a sale thru a pu!lic instrument shall !e equi-alent to the deli-er$ of the
thing unless there is stipulation to the contrar$. )f howe-er notwithstanding the
e,ecution of the instrument the purchaser cannot ha-e the en"o$ment and material
tenanc$ of the thing and ma*e use of it herself !ecause such tenanc$ and en"o$ment
are opposed !$ another then deli-er$ has not !een effected. .ppl$ing the a!o-e
pronouncements on the instant case it is clear that possession passed from -endor
8illiam Giger to pri-ate respondent 0anuel 0ercado !$ -irtue of the first sale a retro
and accordingl$ the later sale a retro in fa-or of petitioner failed to pass the possession
of the propert$ !ecause there is an impediment G the possession e,ercised !$ pri-ate
respondent. Possession as a fact cannot !e recognized at the same time in two
different personalities e,cept in the cases of co3possession. ;hould a question arise
regarding the fact of possession the present possessor shall !e preferred> if there are
two possessions the one longer in possession if the dates of possession are the same
the one who presents a title> and if these conditions are equal the thing shall !e placed
in "udicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper
proceedings.
Somod$o v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 82780, +5g5st 15, 199!, 235 S,R+ 307
<5$aso4, (.
*+,-S. 8ilfredo 0a!ugat and Nicanor ;omodio !ought a residential lot situated at
4a"ah 0uda =ula General ;antos. Petitioner and 0a!ugat partitioned the propert$ into
two portions with petitioner ta*ing the western part. )mmediatel$ after the partition
petitioner too* possession of his portion and planted thereon ipil3ipil trees coconut trees
and other fruit3!earing trees. )n '67+ petitioner !egan construction of a structure with a
dimension of 223!$3'8 feet on his lot. His emplo$ment howe-er too* him to
Sidapawan North Cota!ato and he left the unfinished structure to the case of his uncle.
He would -isit the propert$ e-er$ three months or on wee*ened when he had time.
;ometime in 7cto!er '677 petitioner allowed respondent Belomino .$co to transfer
his hut to petitionerEs lot. .!out si, $ears later petitioner demanded that .$co -acate
the premises !ut such demand pro-ed futile. Hence on .ugust 25 '685 petitioner filed
an action for unlawful detainer with damages against respondent .$co. 0eanwhile on
76
2une 2+ '685 respondent :!enecer Purisima entered the land and constructed a
house thereon. Bour da$s later petitioner filed against respondent Purisima a complaint
for forci!le entr$ !efore the same court doc*eted as Ci-il Case No. 2%'53). ;aid case
was later consolidated with Ci-il Case No. 2%523)).
/SS01. 8hether or not ;omodio has actual possession of the propert$.
H1L2. 9es. .rticle &5' of the Ci-il Code of the Philippines pro-ides that possession is
acquired !$ the material occupation of a thing or the e,ercise of a right or !$ the fact
that it is su!"ect to the action of our will or !$ the proper acts and legal formalities
esta!lished for acquiring such right. Petitioner too* possession of the propert$
sometime in '67D when he planted the propert$ to coconut trees ipil3 ipil trees and fruit
trees. )n '67+ he started the construction of a !uilding on the propert$. )t is immaterial
that the !uilding was unfinished and that he left for Sidapawan for emplo$ment reasons
and -isited the propert$ onl$ intermittentl$. Possession in the e$es of the law does not
mean that a man has to ha-e his feet on e-er$ square meter of ground !efore it can !e
said that he is in possession ?4amos -. Airector of Lands 56 Phil. '7& U'6'8V@. )t is
sufficient that petitioner was a!le to su!"ect the propert$ to the action of his will.
3ag5%ot B +E v. 3ag5%ot
G.R. No. 132518, 3ar%6 28, 2000, 329 S,R+ 78
Fap54a4, (.
*+,-S. ;ometime in '6D+ there was a prior oral agreement to tentati-el$ partition Lot
No. '+56. =$ -irtue of this agreement the original co3owners occupied specific portions
of Lot No. '+56. )t was onl$ in '6&2 when the petition to su!di-ide Lot No. '+56 was
filed !ecause two of the co3owners namel$ Hermogenes 7lis and heirs of Pascual 7lis
refused to ha-e said lot su!di-ided and ha-e separate certificates of title. ;ignificantl$
after the '6&2 proceedings the parties in this case !$ themsel-es andHor through their
predecessors3in3interest occupied specific portions of Lot No. '+56 in accordance with
the s*etch plan. ;ometime in '6+5 Guillermo 0aglucot rented a portion of the su!"ect
lot. ;u!sequentl$ Leopoldo and ;e-ero !oth surnamed 0aglucot rented portions of
su!"ect lot in '6+D and '6+6 respecti-el$ and each pa$ing rentals therefor. ;aid
respondents !uilt houses on their corresponding leased lots. #he$ paid the rental
amount of P'%%.%% per annum to 0rs. 4uperta ;alma who represented the heirs of
4o!erto 0aglucot petitioners/ predecessor3in3interest. )n Aecem!er '662 howe-er
said respondents stopped pa$ing rentals claiming ownership o-er the su!"ect lot
alleging the$ had a right o-er the land !ecause such was not partitioned and the$ were
co3owners. 0anglucot3.w thus filed a complaint for reco-er$ of possession and
damages against 0anglucot.
/SS01. 8hether or not 0anglucot3.w ma$ reco-er possession !$ -irtue of a -alid
partition.
8%
H1L2. 9es. .n order for partition is final and not interlocutor$ and hence appeala!le
!ecause it decides the rights of the parties upon the issue su!mitted. )n this case !oth
the order of partition and the unconfirmed s*etch plan are thus interlocutor$.
Ne-ertheless where parties do not o!"ect to the interlocutor$ decree !ut show !$ their
conduct that the$ ha-e assented thereto the$ cannot thereafter question the decree
especiall$ where !$ reason of their conduct considera!le e,pense has !een incurred
in the e,ecution of the commission. 4espondents in this case ha-e occupied their
respecti-e lots in accordance with the s*etchHsu!di-ision plan. #he$ cannot after
acquiescing to the order for more than fort$ ?D%@ $ears !e allowed to question the
!inding effect thereof. Cnder the present rule the proceedings of the commissioners
without !eing confirmed !$ the court are not !inding upon the parties. Howe-er this rule
does not appl$ in case where the parties themsel-es actualized the supposedl$
unconfirmed s*etchHsu!di-ision plan. #he purpose of court appro-al is to gi-e effect to
the s*etchHsu!di-ision plan. )n this case the parties themsel-es or through their
predecessors3in3interest implemented the s*etch plan made pursuant to a court order
for partition !$ actuall$ occup$ing specific portions of Lot No. '+56 in '6&2 and continue
to do so until the present until this case was filed clearl$ the purpose of the court
appro-al has !een met. #his statement is not to !e ta*en to mean that confirmation of
the commissioners ma$ !e dispensed with !ut onl$ that the parties herein are estopped
from raising this question !$ their own acts of ratification of the supposedl$ non3!inding
s*etchHsu!di-ision plan.
,eD5e?a v. )oa4te
G.R. No. 1379!!, +pr$ 7, 2000, 330 S,R+ 217
;a4ga4$ba4, (.
*+,-S. #he petitioners Bernanda 0endoza CequeNa and :duarda .piado sought for
the ownership and possession of the land occupied !$ the respondent Honorata
=olante. Prior to '6&D the land in =inangonan 4izal was declared for ta,ation
purposes in the name of ;inforoso 0endoza the father of respondent. ;inforoso died in
'65%. 7n the !asis of an affida-it the ta, declaration in the name of ;inforoso 0endoza
of the contested lot was cancelled and su!sequentl$ declared in the name of 0argarito
0endoza the father of the petitioners. 0argarito and ;inforoso are !rothers. Auring the
cadastral sur-e$ respondent Honorata is the present occupant of the land together with
0iguel 0endoza another !rother of the petitioners. #he trial court rendered the
petitioners as the lawful owner and possessors of the land. Howe-er the Court of
.ppeals re-ersed the decision !ecause the genuineness and the due e,ecution of the
affida-it. )t was said to !e insufficient to o-ercome the denial of respondent and her
mother. 0oreo-er the pro!ati-e -alue of petitioners/ ta, receipts and declarations paled
in comparison with respondent/s proof of ownership of the disputed parcel. #he actual
ph$sical e,clusi-e and continuous possession !$ respondent since '68& ga-e her a
!etter title under .rticle &58 of the Ci-il Code. #he petitioners contended otherwise that
she came into possession through force and -iolence contrar$ to .rticle &5+ of the Ci-il
Code.
8'
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not the respondent has the actual ph$sical e,clusi-e and continuous
possession of the land.
2.@ 8hether or not ta, declarations and receipts are conclusi-e e-idence of ownership
or possession.
H1L2. '.@ 9es. Possession !$ the petitioner !efore '68& was not e,clusi-e as the
respondent also acquired it !efore '68&. #he records show that the petitioners/ father
and !rother as well as the respondent and her mother were simultaneousl$ in ad-erse
possession of the land. =ased on .rticle &58 of the Ci-il Code the respondent is the
preferred possessor !ecause !enefitting from her father/s ta, declaration of the su!"ect
lot since '62+ she has !een in possession thereof for a longer period. 7n the other
hand petitioners/ father acquired "oint possession onl$ in '6&2.
2.@ No. #a, declarations and receipts are not conclusi-e e-idence of ownership. .t
most the$ constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership or possession of the propert$
for which ta,es ha-e !een paid. )n the a!sence of actual pu!lic and ad-erse
possession the declaration of the land for ta, purposes does not pro-e ownership. #he
petitioners/ claim of ownership of the whole parcel has no legal !asis.
82
+rago4 v. /4s5ar Gover4me4t
G.R. No. L-7019, 3ar%6 25, 1911, 19 ;6$. 223
,arso4, (.
*+,-S. #he Go-ernment of the Philippine )slands through its proper representati-es
o!"ected to the application for registration pursuant to the Land 4egistration .ct of a
small lot of parcel of land !eing instituted !$ herein petitioner 2uan .ragon on the
ground that said land forms part of the pu!lic domain appl$ing the pro-isions of
su!section ' of .rticle 556 of the old Ci-il Code now .rticle D2% paragraph ' of the
New Ci-il Code which pro-ides that the following things are propert$ of pu!lic dominion<
?'@ #hose intended for pu!lic use such as roads canals ri-ers torrents ports and
!ridges constructed !$ the ;tate !an*s shores roadstead and others of similar
character. )t appears howe-er that possessor$ title o-er the land in question was dul$
registered in fa-or of petitioner and that the applicant and their predecessors in interest
ha-e !een in possession of the parcel of land in question under an undisputed claim of
ownership. #hat there are strong reasons to !elie-e that the land in question was
originall$ well a!o-e the e!! and flow of the tide and onl$ in later $ears ha-e the waters
risen to such a height along the shores of the =a$ of 0anila at this point as to co-er the
land in question completel$ at high tide though it cannot !e ascertained definitel$
whether it is due to changes in the current and flow of the waters in the !a$ or to the
gradual sin*ing of the land along the coast.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner is entitled ownership o-er the land in question.
H1L2. #he Court affirmed the decree entered !$ the lower court in fa-or of petitioner
appl$ing the pro-isions of .rticle DD+ of the old Ci-il Code .rticle &56 of the New Ci-il
Code which pro-ides that e-er$ possessor has a right to !e protected in his possession>
and should he !e distur!ed therein he shall !e protected in or restored to said
possession !$ the means esta!lished !$ the laws and the 4ules of Court. Corollar$ a
possessor ma$ lose his possession under the circumstances pro-ided under .rticle &&&
of the New Ci-il Code to wit< ?'@ =$ the a!andonment of the thing> ?2@ =$ an
assignment made to another either !$ onerous or gratuitous title> ?5@ =$ the destruction
or total loss of the thing or !ecause it goes out of commerce> and ?D@ =$ the possession
of another su!"ect to the pro-isions of .rticle &57 if the new possession has lasted
longer than one $ear. =ut the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten
$ears. #he Court held that since the foregoing enumerations with respect to the loss of
possession was not conclusi-el$ esta!lished !$ the representati-es of the go-ernment
and the fact that the owners of the land in question ha-e ne-er intended to a!andon the
same then it is "ust and proper to register said land in their name.
,at6o$% V$%ar +posto$% o# t6e 3o54ta$4 ;rov$4%e v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 8029!, 3ar%6 23, 1990, 183 S,R+ 739
Ga4%a'%o, (.
85
*+,-S. C.3G.4. No. 5885%34 was a land registration case where petitioner and pri-ate
respondents were as*ing for confirmation of their alleged imperfect titles to the lots in
question under ;ection D6 ?!@ of the Pu!lic Land .ct. )n the said decision the appellate
court found that the petitioner was not entitled to confirmation of its imperfect title to Lots
2 and 5. )n separate motions for reconsideration filed !$ pri-ate respondents Heirs of
7cta-iano and Heirs of 2uan 1aldez relating to the same decision the$ also as*ed that
said two lots !e registered in their names. 7n .ugust '2 '677 the Court of .ppeals
denied !oth motions. :ffecti-el$ therefore in the said decision the appellate court ruled
that neither the petitioner nor the pri-ate respondents are entitled to the confirmation of
imperfect title o-er said two lots. Pursuant to the said decision in C.3G.4. No. 5885%34
the two lots in question remained part of the pu!lic lands. #his is the onl$ logical
conclusion when the appellate court found that neither the petitioner nor pri-ate
respondents are entitled to confirmation of imperfect title o-er said lots. #he present
actions that were instituted in the 4egional #rial Court !$ pri-ate respondents are
actions for reco-er$ of possession ?accion pu!liciana@ and not for reco-er$ of ownership
?accion rei-indicatoria@.
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner is entitled to the possession of the su!"ect lots.
H1L2. 9es. Cnder .rticle &&& ?D@ of the Ci-il Code it is pro-ided that a possessor ma$
lose his possession I!$ the possession of another su!"ect to the pro-isions of .rticle
&57 if the new possession has lasted longer than one $ear. &ut the real ri$ht of
possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten "ears.J )n the case at !ar it is clear that
the petitioner was in possession of the said propert$ as !orrower in commodatum from
pri-ate respondents since '6%+. Howe-er in '6&' petitioner repudiated the trust when it
declared the propert$ for ta, purposes under its name. #hus when petitioner filed its
application for registration of the said propert$ in '6+2 it had !een in ad-erse
possession of the same for at least '' $ears. Hence the action for reco-er of
possession of said propert$ filed !$ pri-ate respondents against petitioner must fail. #he
Court therefore finds that the trial court and the Court of .ppeals erred in declaring the
pri-ate respondents to !e entitled to the possession thereof. 0uch less can the$
pretend to !e owners thereof. ;aid lots are part of the pu!lic domain.
8D
12,+ ;5b$s6$4g C 2$str$b5t$4g ,orp. v. Sa4tos,
G.R. No. 80298, +pr$ 27, 1990, 13! S,R+ 71!
,r5&, (.
*+,-S. 2ose Cruz ordered !$ telephone D%+ !oo*s from :AC. Pu!lishing and
Aistri!uting Corp. ?:AC.@ pa$a!le on deli-er$. :AC. prepared the corresponding
in-oice and deli-ered the !oo*s as ordered for which Cruz issued a chec*.
;u!sequentl$ Cruz sold '2% of the !oo*s to Leonor ;antos who paid him after -erif$ing
the sellerEs ownership from the in-oice he showed her. 0eanwhile :AC. ha-ing
!ecome suspicious o-er a second order placed !$ Cruz e-en !efore clearing of his first
chec* made inquiries with the Ae la ;alle College where he had claimed to !e a dean
and was informed that there was no such person in its emplo$. Burther Cruz had no
account with the Philippine .manah =an* against which he had drawn the chec*.
:AC. went to the police which arrested Cruz whose real name was #omas de la PeNa.
:AC. sought the assistance of the police and forced their wa$ into the store of the
;antos and threatened her with prosecution for !u$ing stolen propert$. #he$ seized the
'2% !oo*s. ;antos sued for reco-er$ of the !oo*s after demand for their return was
re"ected !$ :AC..
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not :AC. was unlawfull$ depri-ed of the !oo*s !ecause the chec*
issued !$ the impostor in pa$ment therefor was dishonored.
2.@ 8hether or not :AC. had the right to cease the !oo*s that were sold to ;antos.
H1L2. '.@ No. :AC. was not unlawfull$ depri-ed of the !oo*s. .rticle &&6 of the Ci-il
Code pro-ides that the possession of mo-a!le propert$ acquired in good faith is
equi-alent to a title. Ne-ertheless one who has lost an$ mo-a!le or has !een unlawfull$
depri-ed thereof ma$ reco-er it from the person in possession of the same. )f the
possessor of a mo-a!le lost or of which the owner has !een unlawfull$ depri-ed has
acquired it in good faith at a pu!lic sale the owner cannot o!tain its return without
reim!ursing the price paid therefor. . contract of sale is perfected once agreement is
reached !etween the parties on the su!"ect matter and the consideration. 7wnership in
the thing sold shall not pass to the !u$er until full pa$ment of the purchase onl$ if there
is a stipulation to that effect. 7therwise the rule is that such ownership shall pass from
the -endor to the -endee upon the actual or constructi-e deli-er$ of the thing sold e-en
if the purchase price has not $et !een paid. Non3pa$ment onl$ creates a right to
demand pa$ment or to rescind the contract or to criminal prosecution in the case of
!ouncing chec*s. =ut a!sent the stipulation a!o-e noted deli-er$ of the thing sold will
effecti-el$ transfer ownership to the !u$er who can in turn transfer it to another.
2.@ No. .ctual deli-er$ of the !oo*s ha-ing !een made Cruz acquired ownership o-er
the !oo*s which he could then -alidl$ transfer to the pri-ate respondents. #he fact that
he had not $et paid for them to :AC. was a matter !etween him and :AC. and did not
impair the title to the !oo*s acquired !$ the ;antos spouses. #herefore :AC. was not
unlawfull$ depri-ed of the !oo*s and ;antos had rights o-er the !oo*s.
8&
2e Gar%$a v. Ho4. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-2027!, (a45ar' 30, 1971, 37 S,R+ 129
*er4a4do, (.
*+,-S. 7n 7cto!er '' '6&5 .ngelina Gue-arra while tal*ing to Consuelo de Garcia
recognized her ring in the finger of the latter which she lost sometime in Be!ruar$ '6&2.
Gue-arra as*ed where de Garcia !ought the ring to which de Garcia answered that she
!ought it from her comadre. Gue-arra e,plained to de Garcia that that ring was the -er$
same ring stolen from her. Ae Garcia handed the ring to Gue-arra and the ring fitted her
finger. #wo or three da$s later at the request of Gue-arra she her hus!and Lt. Col.
2uan Gue-ara Lt. Cementina of Pasa$ PA de Garcia and her attorne$ proceeded to
the store of 0r. 4e!ullida to whom the$ showed the ring in question. 0r. 4e!ullida
e,amined the ring with the aid of high power lens and after consulting the stoc* card
thereon concluded that it was the -er$ ring that plaintiff !ought from him in '6D7. #he
ring was returned to defendant who despite a written request therefor failed to deli-er
the ring to plaintiff. )n trial de Garcia said that she !ought the ring from 0rs. 0iranda
who got it from 0rs. .ngelita Hinahon who in turn got it from .ling Petring who was
!oarding in her house.
/SS01. 8hether or not de Garcia/s possession of the ring in good faith confers her title
to the said ring.
H1L2. No. #he controlling pro-ision is .rticle &&6 of the Ci-il Code which pro-ides that
possession of mo-a!le propert$ acquired in good faith is equi-alent to a title.
Ne-ertheless one who has lost an$ mo-a!le or has !een unlawfull$ depri-ed thereof
ma$ reco-er it from the person in possession of the same. )f the possessor of a
mo-a!le lost of which the owner has !een unlawfull$ depri-ed has acquired it in good
faith at a pu!lic sale the owner cannot o!tain its return without reim!ursing the price
paid therefor. 4espondent .ngelina A. Gue-ara ha-ing !een unlawfull$ depri-ed of the
diamond ring in question was entitled to reco-er it from petitioner Consuelo ;. de
Garcia who was found in possession of the same. #he onl$ e,ception the law allows is
when there is acquisition in good faith of the possessor at a pu!lic sale in which case
the owner cannot o!tain its return without reim!ursing the price. #he common law
principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer !$ a fraud perpetrated !$
the another the law imposes the loss upon the part$ who !$ his misplaced confidence
has ena!led the fraud to !e committed cannot !e applied in a case which is co-ered !$
an e,press pro-ision of the new Ci-il Code specificall$ .rticle &&6. =etween a common
law principle and statutor$ pro-ision the latter must pre-ail in this "urisdiction. )t is thus
immediatel$ apparent that there is no merit to the contention raised in the first assigned
error that her possession in good faith equi-alent to title sufficed to defeat respondent
Gue-araEs claim. .s the a!o-e cases demonstrate e-en on that assumption the owner
can reco-er the same once she can show illegal depri-ation. 4espondent Court of
.ppeals was so con-inced from the e-idence su!mitted that the owner of the ring in
litigation is such respondent.
8+
2$&o4 v. S54ta'
G.R. No. L-30817, September 29, 1972, !7 S,R+ 170
*er4a4do, (.
*+,-S. Lourdes ;unta$ is the owner of a 5 carat diamond ring. ;he entered into a
transaction with Clarita ;ison wherein said ring was deli-ered to the latter for sale on
commission. Cpon recei-ing the ring the receipt was deli-ered to ;unta$. .fter a lapse
of a considera!le amount of time the ring was not $et returned and so ;unta$
demanded for its return from ;ison !ut the latter could not compl$ as she had alread$
pledged it with Aizon/s pawnshop for P 2+%%.%%. .fter insistent demands ;ison
deli-ered the pawnshop tic*et to ;unta$. ;unta$ through her counsel wrote to Aizon
as*ing for the deli-er$ of the ring pledged !ut the latter refused. ;he filed an action for
reco-er$ with P &%% as attorne$/s fees and costs. ;he as*ed for the remed$ of reple-in
upon filing the requisite !ond pending final determination of the action. #he CB) of
0anila issued the writ and ;unta$ was a!le to regain possession during the pendenc$
of the action. #he lower court rendered a decision in fa-or of ;unta$. 7n appeal Aizon
sought the re-ersal of the lower court/s decision and in-o*ing estoppel. C. affirmed the
lower court/s decision. ;C affirmed C. decision.
/SS01. 8hether or not the owner of the ring ma$ reco-er its possession from the
pawnshop owner.
H1L2. 9es. 7wner of a diamond ring ma$ reco-er the possession of the same from a
pawnshop where another person had pledged it without authorit$ to do so. .rt. &&6 of
the ci-il code applies and the defense that the pawnshop acquired possession of the
without notice of an$ defect in the title of the pledgor is una-ailing. Neither the
promptings of equit$ nor the mandates of moral right and natural "ustice come to his
rescue. Aizon is engaged in a !usiness where presuma!l$ ordinar$ prudence would
manifest itself to ascertain whether or not an indi-idual who is offering a "ewelr$ !$ wa$
of a pledge is entitled to do so. )f no such care !e ta*en he should !e the last to
complain if thereafter the right of the true owner of such "ewelr$ should !e recognized.
Ledesma v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 87051, September 1, 1992, 213 S,R+ 195
2av$de, (.
*+,-S. #wo motor -ehiclesGHonda Gemini and Holden Premiere 0odelGwere
purchased from Citiwide 0otors !$ a person who identified himself as 2o"o Consun"i. He
!ought the -ehicles purportedl$ for his father. Cpon deli-er$ to him of the -ehicles he
paid a manager/s chec* drawn against PC)=. #he chec* though was dishonored !$ the
!an* on the ground that the chec*/s -alue has !een materiall$ altered. #his was
87
reported to the police authorities and it was found out that the person misrepresenting
himself was actuall$ ;uarez who had a long line of criminal cases against him for his
modus operandi. #he Holden car was reco-ered after !eing a!andoned somewhere in
Muezon Cit$. #he Honda on the other hand was disco-ered to !e sold to Ledesma.
Ledesma a-erred he purchased the -ehicle in good faith from one Ne$ra as e-idenced
!$ his certificate of registration. Citiwide 0otors was a!le to reco-er.
/SS01. 8hether or not C)#)8)A: 07#74; has !een unlawfull$ depri-ed.
H1L2. No. #here was a perfected unconditional contract of sale !etween Citiwide
0otors and ;uarez. #he su!sequent dishonor of the chec* merel$ amounted to failure
of consideration which doesnEt render a contract of sale -oid !ut merel$ allows the
pre"udiced part$ to sue for specific performance or rescission of the sale. #his !eing the
case Citiwide motors wasnEt unlawfull$ depri-ed of the propert$. )t is thus not entitled to
the return of the -ehicle from Ledesma who !ought the propert$ in good faith and for
consideration.
88
+&ar%o4 a4d +bobo v. 15seb$o
G.R. No. L-11977, +pr$ 29, 1959, 105 S,R+ 579
Labrador, (.
*+,-S. 1ictor :use!io had a dispute o-er a parcel of land with Leonardo .zarcon
0anuel .zarcon and :ste!an .!o!o. :use!io filed a lease application for a parcel of
land a portion thereof was occupied !$ .zarcon et al. under a homestead application.
=efore the dispute could !e settled :use!io filed a complaint in the CB) of Nue-a :ci"a
alleging that he had acquired a !ig parcel of land !$ lease from the =ureau of Lands
and that while he was in possession thereof .zarcon et al. occupied a portion. #he trial
court ruled in fa-or of :use!io and a writ of e,ecution ordering .zarcon et al. to restore
possession of the land to :use!io was issued on 7cto!er 5 '6&&. Howe-er in spite of
the receipt of the notice of writ of e,ecution .zarcon et al. ne-ertheless entered the
land to gather pala$ which was then pending har-est.
/SS01. 8hether or not .zarcon and .!o!o are entitled to the pending fruits of the land.
H1L2. 9es. 8hile the court order of 7cto!er 5 '6&& ordered them to mo-e out of the
premises it did not prohi!it them from gathering the crop then e,isting thereon. Cnder
the law a person who is in possession and who is !eing ordered to lea-e a parcel of
land while products thereon are in pending har-ests has the right to a part of the net
har-est as e,pressl$ pro-ided !$ .rticle &D& of the Ci-il Code. Hence as the order of
e,ecution did not e,pressl$ prohi!it .zarcon et al. from gathering the pending fruits
which fruits were the result of their possession and culti-ation of the land it cannot !e
said that the$ committed an act which is clear -iolation of the court/s order.
,ordero v. ,abra
G.R. No. L-37789, (5' 25, 1983, 123 S,R+ 532
+bad Sa4tos, (.
*+,-S. 0r. Gregorio O. 7campo of 0e$caua$an =ulacan hus!and of the plaintiff
Belipa Cordero and father of the other plaintiffs surnamed 7campo died on 0a$ '7
'6&8. #he said deceased left se-eral properties which were inherited !$ the plaintiffs
including the land in question which parcel of land was originall$ registered in
accordance with the Land 4egistration .ct on Aecem!er 'D '655 and was registered
andHor transferred in the name of 0r. Gregorio O. 7campo on 2ul$ 5' '65D. .fter the
death of the said 0r. Gregorio O. 7campo the plaintiffs herein too* possession of the
said parcel of land which is a riceland !ut the$ found out that the southern portion of
the same with an area D5%5 square meters more or less upon -erification was
possessed !$ the defendants herein 1ictoria P. Ca!ral .le"andro =er!oso and
Aalmacio 0ontaos. 1ictoria P. Ca!ral claimed to !e the owner of said portion while her
co3defendants co3possessed the same as her tenants. #he plaintiffs demanded of the
defendants to surrender to the former possession of the portion of land andHor -acate it
!ut the$ refused and failed to do so and the defendant 1ictoria P. Ca!ral continued
86
claiming to !e the owner of the same while her co3defendants continued recognizing her
as the owner thereof instead of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that !ecause of the
defendantsE occupanc$ of the aforementioned plaintiffsE portion of land with the area of
D5%5 square meters more or less to the e,clusion of the latter the said plaintiffs failed
to realize a $earl$ har-est of at least ten ?'%@ ca-anes of pala$ at the rate of P'%.%% per
ca-an from the har-est3time of '6&8 up to the present.
/SS01. 8hether or not the defendants must reim!urse the fruits recei-e.
H1L2. 9es. #he disputed land is included in #.C.#. No. 'D&'5 issued to Gregorio O.
7campo the predecessor of the plaintiffs. #he original registration which includes the
disputed land was not -itiated !$ error or fraud. #he defendants !$ their own
admission are in possession of the disputed land. #here is no e-idence that the$ were
possessors in !ad faith. Howe-er their good faith ceased when the$ were ser-ed with
summons to answer the complaint. .s possessors in !ad faith from the ser-ice of the
summons the$ Fshall reim!urse the fruits recei-ed and those which the legitimate
possessor could ha-e recei-ed.
6%
3e4do&a a4d 14r$D5e& v. 2e G5&ma4
G.R. No. L-28721, "%tober 5, 1928, 52 ;6$. 17!
3a%om, (.
*+,-S. )n the cadastral proceedings of the municipalit$ of ;aria$a #a$a!as a piece of
land identified as lot No. +87 was ad"udicated in fa-or of 0artin 0endoza and Natalio
:nriquez in equal parts pro indi-iso su!"ect to the right of retention on the part of
0anuel de Guzman until he shall ha-e !een indemnified for the impro-ements e,isting
on the land. 0endoza has possessed it since '6'+. =$ -irtue of this "udgment Ae
Guzman presented a motion requesting the issuance of a writ of possession for lot No.
+87 in his fa-or which was granted on 2une 2& '62D. ;ince then Ae Guzman has had
dominion o-er the land. =eing una!le to come to an agreement as to the amount which
should !e allowed for the impro-ements made on the land 0artin 0endoza and Natalio
:nriquez !egan an action requesting the court to ?a@ fi, the -alue of the necessar$ and
useful e,penses incurred !$ 0anuel de Guzman in introducing the impro-ements> ?!@
require the defendant to render an accounting of the fruits recei-ed !$ him and order
that the -alue of the fruits !e applied to the pa$ment of the necessar$ and useful
e,penses> and ?c@ decree the restitution of the possession to the plaintiffs. 0a,. =.
;olis one of the persons who were e"ected from the land as*ed lea-e to inter-ene
alleging among other things that Ae Guzman had transferred all his rights in the
impro-ements and in the lot to him with the e,ception of two hundred coconut trees.
#his petition was granted. .t the trial which followed and at the instance of the parties
two commissioners were appinted with instructions to inspect the land and to count the
num!er of coconut trees planted thereon determining the num!er of fruit3!earing trees
and those that are not fruit3!earing as well as the condition of the same. .fter trial
2udge of Birst )nstance Gloria rendered "udgment declaring ?a@ that the defendant
0anuel de Guzman and the inter-enor =ernardo ;olis ha-e the right to collect from the
plaintiffs 0artin 0endoza and Natalio :nriquez the sum of P2%D+ as compensation for
the necessar$ and useful e,penditures in the proportion of 2% per cent for 0anuel de
Guzman and 8% per cent for =ernardo ;olis> and ?!@ that 0anuel de Guzman and
=ernardo ;olis are o!liged to pa$ to the plaintiffs the sum of P+++.65 per annum from
2une 2& '62D one3fifth of this amount to !e paid !$ 0anuel de Guzman and the other
four3fifths !$ =ernardo ;olis. .s on the date when this "udgment was rendered that is
on ;eptem!er 25 '627 the amount that the plaintiffs were required to pa$ to the
defendant and inter-enor e,ceeded the amount that the latter were to pa$ the former
the defendant and inter-enor were ordered to deli-er the land and its impro-ement as
soon as the plaintiffs ha-e paid the difference without special pronouncement as to
costs.
/SS01. 8hether or not the trial court correctl$ declared the amount to !e paid as
FindemnizacionF in the form of necessar$ and useful e,penditures incurred !$ the
defendant.
H1L2. 9es. .rticle 5+' of the Ci-il Code in the original ;panish te,t uses the word
Findemnizacion.F Howe-er one ma$ speculate as to the true meaning of the term
FindemnizacionF whether correctl$ translated as FcompensationF or Findemnit$F the
6'
amount of the FindemnizacionF is the amount of the e,penditures mentioned in articles
D&5 and D&D of the Ci-il Code which in the present case is the amount of the necessar$
and useful e,penditures incurred !$ the defendant. Necessar$ e,penses ha-e !een
-ariousl$ descri!ed !$ the ;panish commentators as those made for the preser-ation of
the thing> as those without which the thing would deteriorate or !e lost> as those that
augment the income of the things upon which the$ are e,panded. .mong the necessar$
e,penditures are those incurred for culti-ation production up*eep etc. Here the
plaintiffs ha-e chosen to ta*e the impro-ements introduced on the land and are
disposed to pa$ the amount of the necessar$ and useful e,penses incurred !$ the
defendant. )nasmuch as the retentionist who is not e,actl$ a posessor in good faith with
in the meaning of the law see*s to !e reim!ursed for the necessar$ and useful
e,penditures it is onl$ "ust that he should account to the owners of the estate for an$
rents fruits or crops he has gathered from it.
Robes a4d 3art$4 v. L$&arraga Herma4os
G.R. No. L-17737, 2e%ember 22, 1921, !2 ;6$. 58!
Rom5ade&, (.
*+,-S. .nastasia de la 4ama died on the '7th of 7cto!er '6'+ lea-ing si, children
to wit 0agdalena 2ose :-arista Oacarias Beli, and Purificacion surnamed 4o!les
and some properties among which is house No. D on )znart ;treet in the cit$ of )loilo.
#he children and heirs of .nastasia de la 4ama entered into partnership with Lizarraga
Hermanos in liquidation and settlement of their accounts !$ -irtue of which the
competent court awarded to said partnership the properties left !$ the deceased
including the aforesaid house No. D on )znart ;treet. :-arista 4o!les one of the heirs
since !efore the death of her mother .nastasia de la 4ama has !een with her hus!and
occup$ing the aforesaid house No. D on )znart ;treet at the !eginning !$ permission of
her mother later on !$ the consent of her coheirs and lastl$ !$ agreement with the
partnership Lizarraga Hermanos to whom it had !een awarded ha-ing made some
impro-ements on the house the -alue of which is fi,ed at four thousand fi-e hundred
pesos ?PD&%%@ and pa$ing to said partnership fort$ pesos ?PD%@ monthl$ as rent of the
upper stor$. 7n 0arch '8 '6'8 Lizarraga Hermanos notified :-arista 4o!les ?:,hi!it
2@ that !eginning .pril ne,t the rent of the upper stor$ of the house would !e raised to
si,t$ pesos ?P+%@ a month and that if she did not agree to the new rate of rent she
might -acate the house. :-arista 4o!les refused to pa$ such a new rate of rent and to
-acate the house and Lizarraga Hermanos !rought suit against her for e"ectment.
:-arista 4o!les sued Lizarraga Hermanos afterwards to reco-er the -alue of the
impro-ements.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not :-arista 4o!les is the owner of the aforesaid impro-ements and has
the right to demand pa$ment of their -alue.
2.@ 8hether or not she has an$ right to retain the !uilding until the said -alue is paid to
her.
62
H1L2. '.@ 9es. 4o!les is the owner of the impro-ements. #he e,penditures incurred in
these impro-ements were not necessar$ inasmuch as without them the house would
ha-e continued to stand "ust as !efore !ut were useful inasmuch as with them the
house !etter ser-es the purpose for which it was intended !eing used as a residence
and the impro-ements consisting of the addition of a dining room *itchen closet and
!athroom in the lower and upper stories of the house and a sta!le suita!le as a coach
house and dwelling it is !e$ond dou!t that such impro-ements are useful to the
!uilding. ;ince the impro-ements are useful and 4o!les/ possession is in good faith
appl$ing .rticle D&5 it is !e$ond question that :-arista 4o!les is the owner of such
impro-ements and entitled to reim!ursement therefor.
2.@ 9es. )t is a fact that the -alue of the impro-ements in question has not as $et !een
paid !$ Lizarraga Hermanos. 8herefore if :-arista 4o!les and her hus!and are
entitled to retain the !uilding until the -alue of such impro-ements is paid them
Lizarraga Hermanos ha-e not $et an$ right to oust them from the !uilding nor
therefore to !e indemnified for an$ damages caused !$ the refusal of the plaintiffs
found on their legitimate rights. Hence due to the non3reim!ursement of the aforesaid
useful e,penditures the possessor in good faith has the right of retention until she has
!een full$ reim!ursed with the same.
3etropo$ta4 9aterEor8s a4d SeEerage S'stem v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-5!527, +5g5st 25, 1987, 1!3 S,R+ 723
3art$4e&, (.
*+,-S. ;ometime in '6+& petitioner 08;; ?then *nown as N.8.;.@ leased around
one hundred twent$ eight ?'28@ hectares of its land ?hereafter su!"ect propert$@ to
respondent CHGCC) ?formerl$ the )nternational ;ports Ae-elopment Corporation@ for
twent$ fi-e ?2&@ $ears and renewa!le for another fifteen ?'&@ $ears or until the $ear
2%%& with the stipulation allowing the latter to e,ercise a right of first refusal should the
su!"ect propert$ !e made open for sale. #he terms and conditions of respondent
CHGCC)Es purchase thereof shall nonetheless !e su!"ect to presidential appro-al.
Pursuant to Letter of instruction ?L7)@ No. DD% issued on 2ul$ 26'67+ !$ then President
Berdinand :. 0arcos directing petitioner 08;; to negotiate the cancellation of the
08;;3CHGCC) lease agreement for the disposition of the su!"ect propert$ 7scar
)lustre then General 0anager of petitioner 08;; sometime in No-em!er of '68%
informed respondent CHGCC) through its president herein respondent Pa!lo 4oman
2r. of its preferential right to !u$ the su!"ect propert$ which was up for sale. 1aluation
thereof was to !e made !$ an appraisal compan$ of petitioner 08;;E choice the .sian
.ppraisal Co. )nc. which on 2anuar$ 5% '68' pegged a fair mar*et -alue of PD%.%%
per square meter or a total of P&58%%%%%.%% for the su!"ect propert$. Cpon !eing
informed that petitioner 08;; and respondent CHGCC) had alread$ agreed in
principle on the purchase of the su!"ect propert$ President 0arcos e,pressed his
appro-al of the sale as shown in his marginal note on the letter sent !$ respondents
65
2ose 4o,as and Pa!lo 4oman 2r. dated Aecem!er 2% '682.#he =oard of #rustees of
petitioner 08;; thereafter passed 4esolution 5+385 appro-ing the sale of the su!"ect
propert$ in fa-or of respondent ;)LH7C:##: as assignee of respondent CHGCC). #he
08;;3;)LH7C:##: sales agreement e-entuall$ pushed through. Per the .greement
dated 0a$ '' '685 co-ering said purchase the total price for the su!"ect propert$ is
P&%62&2%% P2& 0illion of which was to !e paid upon President 0arcosE appro-al of
the contract and the !alance to !e paid within one ?'@ $ear from the transfer of the title
to respondent ;)LH7C:##: as -endee with interest at '2( per annum. #he !alance
was also secured !$ an irre-oca!le letter of credit. . ;upplemental .greement was
forged !etween petitioner 08;; and respondent ;)LH7C:##: on .ugust '' '685 to
accuratel$ identif$ the su!"ect propert$. ;u!sequentl$ respondent ;)LH7C:##: under
a deed of sale dated 2ul$ 2+ '68D sold to respondent .9.L. a!out si,t$3se-en ?+7@
hectares of the su!"ect propert$ at P''%.%% per square meter. 7f the total price of
around P7D 0illion P2& 0illion was to !e paid !$ respondent .9.L. directl$ to
petitioner 08;; for respondent ;)LH7C:##:Es account and P2 0illion directl$ to
respondent ;)LH7C:##:. P''+%%%%% was to !e paid upon the issuance of title in
fa-or of respondent .9.L. and the remaining !alance to !e pa$a!le within one ?'@
$ear with '2( per annum interest. 4espondent .9.L. de-eloped the land it purchased
into a prime residential area now *nown as the .$ala Heights ;u!di-ision. .lmost a
decade later petitioner 08;; on 0arch 2+ '665 filed an action against all herein
named respondents !efore the 4egional #rial Court of Muezon Cit$ see*ing for the
declaration of nullit$ of the 08;;3;)LH7C:##: sales agreement and all su!sequent
con-e$ances in-ol-ing the su!"ect propert$ and for the reco-er$ thereof with damages.
/SS01. 8hether or not 08;; failed to pro-ide appropriate securit$ measures o-er its
own records> Circumstances led N=) to !elie-e that the fraudulent encashment as an
Iinside "o!J.
H1L2. 9es. #he records li*ewise show that 08;; failed to pro-ide appropriate
securit$ measures o-er its own records there!$ la$ing confidential records open to
unauthorized persons. 08;;Es own Bact Binding Committee in its report su!mitted to
their General 0anager underscored this la,it$ of records control. )t o!ser-ed that the
Foffice of 0r. 7ngtengco ?Cashier 1) of the #reasur$ Aepartment at the N.8.;.@ is
quite open to an$ person *nown to him or his staff mem!ers and that the chec* writer is
merel$ on top of his ta!le. 4el$ing on the foregoing statement of 0r. 7ngtengco the
N=) concluded in its 4eport dated 2 No-em!er '67% that the fraudulent encashment of
the 25 chec*s in question was an Finside "o!F. #hus the N=) !elie-e that the fraudulent
act was an inside "o! or one pulled with inside conni-ance at N.8.;.. #he serial
num!ers of the chec*s in question conform with the num!ers in current use of
N.8.;. aside from the fact that these fraudulent chec*s were found to !e of the
same *ind and design as that of N.8.;.Es own chec*s. 8hile *nowledge as to such
facts ma$ !e o!tained through the possession of a N.8.;. chec* of current issue an
outsider without information from the inside can not possi!l$ pinpoint which of
N.8.;.Es -arious accounts has sufficient !alance to co-er all these fraudulent chec*s.
None of these chec*s it should !e noted was dishonored for insufficienc$ of funds.
6D
)a%6ra%6 v. Se$#ert a4d 1$a4o##
G.R. No. L-2759, "%tober 12, 1950, 87 ;6$. !83
"&aeta, (.
*+,-S. #he deceased :. 0. =achrach who left no forced heir e,cept his widow 0ar$
0cAonald =achrach in his last will and testament made -arious legacies in cash and
willed the remainder of his estate. #he estate of :. 0. =achrach as owner of '%8%%%
shares of stoc* of the .to*3=ig 8edge 0ining Co. )nc. recei-ed from the latter &D%%%
shares representing &% per cent stoc* di-idend on the said '%8%%% shares. 7n 2une
'% '6D8 0ar$ 0cAonald =achrach as usufructuar$ or life tenant of the estate
petitioned the lower court to authorize the Peoples =an* and #rust Compan$ as
administrator of the estate of :. 0. =achrach to transfer to her the said &D%%% shares
of stoc* di-idend !$ indorsing and deli-ering to her the corresponding certificate of
stoc* claiming that said di-idend although paid out in the form of stoc* is fruit or
income and therefore !elonged to her as usufructuar$ or life tenant. ;ophie ;eifert and
:lisa :lianoff legal heirs of the deceased opposed said petition on the ground that the
stoc* di-idend in question was not income !ut formed part of the capital and therefore
!elonged not to the usufructuar$ !ut to the remainderman. 8hile appellants admit that a
cash di-idend is an income the$ contend that a stoc* di-idend is not !ut merel$
represents an addition to the in-ested capital.
/SS01. 8hether or not a di-idend is an income and whether it should go to the
usufructuar$.
H1L2. 9es. #he usufructuar$ shall !e entitled to recei-e all the natural industrial and
ci-il fruits of the propert$ in usufruct. #he '%8%%% shares of stoc* are part of the
propert$ in usufruct. #he &D%%% shares of stoc* di-idend are ci-il fruits of the original
in-estment. #he$ represent profits and the deli-er$ of the certificate of stoc* co-ering
said di-idend is equi-alent to the pa$ment of said profits. ;aid shares ma$ !e sold
independentl$ of the original shares "ust as the offspring of a domestic animal ma$ !e
sold independentl$ of its mother. )f the di-idend !e in fact a profit although declared in
stoc* it should !e held to !e income. . di-idend whether in the form of cash or stoc*
is income and consequentl$ should go to the usufructuar$ ta*ing into consideration
that a stoc* di-idend as well as a cash di-idend can !e declared onl$ out of profits of
the corporation for if it were declared out of the capital it would !e a serious -iolation of
the law.
Cnder the 0assachusetts rule a stoc* di-idend is considered part of the capital and
!elongs to the remainderman> while under the Penns$l-ania rule all earnings of a
corporation when declared as di-idends in whate-er form made during the lifetime of
the usufructuar$ !elong to the latter. #he Penns$l-ania rule is more in accord with our
statutor$ laws than the 0assachusetts rule.
Hemedes v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas,
6&
G.R. No. 107132, "%tober 8, 1999, 317 S,R+ 3!7
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. 2ose Hemedes father of 0a,ima Hemedes and :nrique A. Hemedes. 2ose
Hemedes e,ecuted a document entitled FAonation )nter 1i-os with 4esolutor$
ConditionsF where!$ he con-e$ed ownership o-er the su!"ect land together with all its
impro-ements in fa-or of his third wife 2usta Sausapin su!"ect to the following
resolutor$ conditions that upon her death or marriage the donee shall re-ert the said
propert$ to an$one of 2ose Hemedes children. 7n ;eptem!er 27 '6+% a FAeed of
Con-e$ance of Cnregistered 4eal Propert$ !$ 4e-ersionF was made con-e$ing to
0a,ima Hemedes. ;he had it titled and mortgage it to 4 K = )nsurance with an
annotation of ICsufructJ in fa-or of her stepmother 2usta Sausapin. Cna!le to pa$ the
mortgage 4 K = )nsurance e,tra3"udiciall$ foreclosed the propert$. Howe-er 2usta
Sausapin e,ecuted another agreement or Sasunduan on 0a$ 27 '67' to his stepson
:nrique A. Hemedes. He o!tained ta, declarations and pa$ realt$ ta,es from thereon.
#he 0inistr$ of .grarian 4eform 7ffice conducted a cadastral sur-e$ and indicated
:nrique Hemedes as the owner. :nrique Hemedes sold the propert$ to Aominium
4ealt$ Const. Corp. ?Aominium@ a sister compan$ of .sia =rewer$. .sia =rewer$
started to introduce some impro-ements alread$ when 4 K = insurance informed them
that the$ are the owners of the propert$ where these impro-ements are !eing !uilt.
/SS01. 8hether or not the *asunduan e,ecuted !$ 2usta Sausapin in fa-or of :nrique
A. Hemedes was -alid.
H1L2. No. #he court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the C.. )t held
that 0a,ima failed to compl$ with the requirements of .rt. '552 of the ci-il code and
also failed to repudiate 2usta Sausapin/s allegation that she did not e,ecute such a
deed and she ne-er allowed to use the land as securit$ for the loan. )t was found that
the deed of con-e$ance to 0a,ima was spurious and it follows that the original title she
had for the propert$ was also null and -oid so as the mortgage to 4 K = )nsurance. 7n
the other hand Sausapin e,ecuted an affida-it to affirm the authenticit$ of the the
*asundudan in fa-or of his stepson :nrique Hemedes whom she is dependent from for
her financial support.
6+
*ab$e v. G5t$erre& 2av$d
G.R. No. L-123, 2e%ember 12, 19!5, 75 ;6$. 537
"&aeta, (.
*+,-S. #he petitioner 2osefa Ba!ie is the usufructuar$ of the income of certain houses
located at 572357+ ;anto Cristo =inondo and 6&%36&+ 7ngpin ;anta Cruz 0anila
under the ninth clause of the will of the deceased 4osario Ba!ie $ Gre$. #he owner of
;anto Cristo propert$ a!o-ementioned is the respondent 2uan Gre$ while those of the
7ngpin propert$ are other person not concern herein. Pre-ious to ;eptem!er '6DD
litigation arose !etween 2osefa Ba!ie as plaintiff and 2uan Gre$ as defendant and the
owner of the 7ngpin propert$ as inter-enors in-ol-ing the administration of the houses
mentioned.
/SS01. 8hether or not the action instituted !$ the petitioner 2osefa Ba!ie is a purel$
possessor$ action and as such within the "urisdiction of said court or an action founded
on propert$ right and therefore !e$ond the "urisdiction of the municipal court.
H1L2. 9es. )t is admitted !$ the parties that the petitioner 2osefa Ba!ie is the
usufructuar$ of the income of the propert$ in question and that the respondent 2uan
Gre$ is the owner thereof. )t is li*ewise admitted that !$ -irtue of a final "udgment
entered in Ci-il Case No. '+&6 of the Court of Birst )nstance of 0anila !etween the
usufructuar$ and the owner the former has the right to collect all the rents of said
propert$ for herself with the o!ligation on her part to pa$ all the real estate ta,es
special assessments and insurance premiums and ma*e all necessar$ repairs
thereon and in case default on her part the owner shall ha-e the right to do all those
things in which e-ent he shall !e entitled to collect all su!sequent rents of the propert$
concerned until the amount paid !$ him and the e,penses of collection are full$
satisfied after which the usufructuar$ shall again collect the rents. #here is therefore no
dispute as to the title to or the respecti-e interests of the parties in the propert$ in
question. #he na*ed title to the propert$ is to admittedl$ in the respondent 2uan Gre$
!ut the right to all the rents thereof with the o!ligation to pa$ the ta,es and insurance
premiums and ma*e the necessar$ repairs is also admittedl$ -ested in the
usufructuar$ the petitioner 2osefa Ba!ie during her lifetime.
Construing said "udgment in the light of the ninth clause of the will of the deceased
4osario Ba!ie $ Gre$ which was quoted in the decision and !$ which 2osefa Ba!ie was
made !$ the usufructuar$ during her lifetime of the income of the propert$ in question
we find that the said usufructuar$ has the right to administer the propert$ in question. .ll
the acts of administration G to collect the rents for herself and to conser-e the propert$
!$ ma*ing all necessar$ repairs and pa$ing all the ta,es special assessments and
insurance premiums thereon G were !$ said "udgment -ested in the usufructuar$
67
Vda. 2e +ra4as v. +ra4as
G.R. No. L-572!9, 3a' 29, 1987, 150 S,R+ !15
;aras, (.
*+,-S. Br. #eodoro .ranas a priest of the 4oman Catholic Church died on 2anuar$
'6 '6&5. He had e,ecuted on 2une + '6D+ his Last 8ill and #estament which was
admitted to pro!ate on .ugust 5' '6&+. )n said Last 8ill and #estament Br. #eodoro
.ranas stipulated the special administration of the remainder of his estate ?after
returning to his !rothers .niceto and Carmelo or their heirs all properties acquired !$
him including '% parcels of land inherited !$ him from his parents@ !$ 1icente .ranas a
faithful and ser-icea!le nephew and designating him also as recipient of 'H2 of the
produce of said properties after deducting the e,penses for the administration and the
other 'H2 of the produce to !e gi-en to the Catholic Church for the eternal repose of the
testatorEs soul. ;aid pertinent pro-ision reads as follows< '(t is m" will that the lands (
had bou$ht from other persons should be conver$ed and placed under a special
administrator. )he special administrator of these lands, for his office, should receive
one half of all the produce from which shall be deducted the expenses for the
administration, and the other half of the produce should be received b" the Roman
Catholic Church and should be spent for m" soul, *icente &. Aranas +)in$tin$,,
because he is a faithful and serviceable nephew, should be the first special
administrator of said properties, without bond, until his death or until he should not want
to hold the said office an"more. An"one of the sons of m" brother Carmelo Aranas can
hold the said office of special administrator, and none other than the". )heir father, m"
brother Carmelo Aranas shall be the one to decide who amon$ them shall hold the said
office, but upon the death of m" said brother Carmelo Aranas, his said sons will have
power to select the one amon$ them ourselves. )he special administration is
perpetual.-
/SS01. 8hether or not perpetual inaliena!ilit$ and administration of the estate of the
late Br. #eodoro .ranas is null and -oid for !eing -iolati-e of .rticle 87% of the NCC.
H1L2. No. 1icente .ranas as a usufructuar$ has the right to en"o$ the propert$ of his
uncle with all the !enefits which result from the normal en"o$ment ?or e,ploitation@ of
anotherEs propert$ with the o!ligation to return at the designated time either the same
thing or in special cases its equi-alent. #his right of 1icente to en"o$ the fruits of the
properties is temporar$ and therefore not perpetual as there is a limitation namel$ his
death or his refusal. Li*ewise his designation as administrator of these properties is
limited !$ his refusal andHor death and therefore it does not run counter to .rt. 87% of
the Ci-il Code relied upon !$ the petitioners. =e it noted that 1icente .ranas is not
prohi!ited to dispose of the fruits and other !enefits arising from the usufruct. Neither
are the na*ed owners ?the other heirs@ of the properties the usufruct of which has !een
gi-en to 1icente .ranas prohi!ited from disposing of said na*ed ownership without
pre"udice of course to 1icenteEs continuing usufruct. #o -oid the designation of 1icente
.ranas as usufructuar$ andHor administrator is to defeat the desire and the d$ing wish of
the testator to reward him for his faithful and unselfish ser-ices rendered during the time
when said testator was seriousl$ ill or !ed3ridden.
68
Lo%s$4 v. Vae4&5ea
G.R. No. L-51333, 3a' 18, 1989, 173 S,R+ !5!
*e$%$a4o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioners were co3owners of a large tract of agricultural land *nown as
IHacienda 1illa 4egaladoJ. . portion of this land *nown as Lot No. 23C3.35 was su!"ect
to lifetime usufructuar$ rights of respondent Helen ;chon. #he !ul* of this lot was
culti-ated !$ the lessees who customaril$ deli-ered the rentals to respondent. )n '672
PA 27 was enacted decreasing the I:mancipation of #enantsJ. #he tract of land owned
in common !$ the petitioners including the portion thereof su!"ect to petitioner/s
usufructuar$ rights fell within the scope of the I7peration Land #ransferJ. Petitioners
sought the opinion of the Aepartment of .grarian 4eform?A.4@ as to who should !e
entitled to recei-e the rental pa$ments which continued to !e made !$ the tenants to
respondent. #he A.4 Aistrict 7fficer rendered the opinion that the rental pa$ments
were properl$ considered as amortization pa$ments for the land and as such should
pertain to the landowners and not the usufructuar$.
/SS01. 8hether or not the usufructuar$ was e,tinguished !$ PA 27 and who !etween
the na*ed owner and the usufructuar$ should !e entitled to the amounts paid !$ the
tenants !eginning 7cto!er 2' '672.
H1L2. 9es. #he usufruct which had therefore e,isted as a "us in re aliena in fa-our of
Helen ;chon was effecti-el$ e,tinguished !$ PA 27. #o hold as pri-ate respondent
apparentl$ urges would o!-iousl$ defeat the purpose of the land reform statute. PA 27
was enacted to emancipate the tenants from I!ondage of the soilJ !$ gi-ing to the
tenant3farmers ownership of the land which the$ were culti-ating. 7wnership o-er the
lands su!"ected to the 7peration Land #ransfer mo-ed from the registered owner to the
tenants. #he Court holds that Lot No. 23C3.35 ha-ing !een declared part of the land
reform area and su!"ected to the 7peration Land #ransfer the pa$ments made on
7cto!er 2' '672 !$ the tenant3farmers constituted amortization pa$ments on the cost
of the land that the$ were required to pa$ under PA 27. #hese pa$ments therefore
legall$ pertain to the petitioners as part of the compensation for the dominion o-er the
land of which the$ were depri-ed of !$ operation of PA 27.
66
Va$s4o v. +dr$a4o
G.R. No. L-37!09, 3a' 23, 1988, 171 S,R+ 398
Gr$4o B +D5$4o, (.
*+,-S. Plaintiff P appellant Nicolas 1alisno alleges that he is the owner of a parcel of
land in Nue-a :ci"a which he !ought from his sister Honorata .driano Brancisco. ;aid
land is planted with watermelon peanuts corn to!acco and other -egeta!les and
ad"oins the land of Belipe .driano on the !an* of the Pampanga 4i-er. .t the time of
the sale of the land to 1alisno the land was irrigated !$ water from the Pampanga 4i-er
through a canal a!out 7% meters long tra-ersing .driano/s land. Later .driano le-elled
a portion of the irrigation canal so that 1alisno was depri-ed of the irrigation water and
pre-ented from culti-ating his &7 P hectare land. #hus 1alisno filed a complaint for
depri-ation of waters rights in the =ureau of Pu!lic 8or*s and Communications ?=ureau
P P8C@. =ureau P P8C ruled in fa-our of 1alisno. )nstead of restoring the irrigation
canal .driano as*ed for a rein-estigation of the case which was granted. )n the
meantime 1alisno re!uilt the irrigation canal at his own e,pense due to his urgent need
to irrigate his watermelon fields. 1alisno then filed a complaint for damages. Howe-er
the ;ecretar$ of =ureau P P8C re-ersed its decision and dismissed 1alisno/s
complaint. )t held that :ladio .driano/s water rights which had !een granted in'625
ceased to !e en"o$ed !$ him in '65+ or '657 when his irrigation canal collapsed. His
non3use of the water rights since then for a period of more than fi-e $ears e,tinguished
the grant !$ operation of law. Hence the water rights did not form part of his hereditar$
estate which his heirs partitioned among themsel-es. Li*ewise 1alisno as -endee of
the land which Honorata recei-ed from her father/s estate did not acquire an$ water
rights with the land purchased. #he trial court held that 1alisno had no right to pass
through the defendantEs land to draw water from the Pampanga 4i-er. )t pointed out that
under ;ection D of the )rrigation Law contro-ersies !etween persons claiming a right to
water from a stream are within the "urisdiction of the ;ecretar$ of =ureau3P8C and his
decision on the matter is final unless an appeal is ta*en to the proper court within thirt$
da$s. #he court ma$ not pass upon the -alidit$ of the decision of the Pu!lic 8or*s
;ecretar$ collaterall$. Burthermore there was nothing in 1alisno/s e-idence to show
that the resolution was not -alid. )t dismissed the complaint and counterclaim. 1alisno/s
motion for reconsideration was denied and he appealed to the Court of the .ppeals
who certified the case to the ;upreme Court.
/SS01. 8hether the pro-isions of the )rrigation .ct ?.ct No. 2'&2@ or those of the Ci-il
Code should appl$ to this case.
H1L2. #he pro-isions of the Ci-il Code shall appl$. #he e,istence of the irrigation canal
on .driano/s land for the passage of water from the Pampanga 4i-er to HonorataEs land
prior to and at the time of the sale of HonorataEs land to 1alisno was equi-alent to a title
for the -endee of the land to continue using it as pro-ided in .rticle +2D of the Ci-il
Code< )he existence of an apparent si$n of easement between two estates, established
or maintained b" the owner of both shall be considered, should either of them be
alienated, as a title in order that he easement ma" continue activel" and passivel",
'%%
unless at the time, theownership of the two estates is divided, the contrar" should be
provided in the title of conve"ance of either of them, or the si$n aforesaid should be
removed before the execution of the deed. )his provision shall also appl" in case of the
division of a thin$ owned in common on b" two or more persons +Civil Code,.
#his pro-ision was lifted from .rticle '22 of the ;panish Law of 8aters which pro-ided<
.henever a tract of irri$ated land which previousl" received its waters from a sin$le
point is divided throu$h inheritance, sale or b" virtue of some other title, between two or
more owners, the owners of the hi$her estates are under obli$ation to $ive free
passa$e to the water as an easement of conduit for the irri$ation of the lower estates,
and without ri$ht to an" compensation therefore unless otherwise stipulated in the deed
of conve"ance.
#he deed of sale in fa-or of 1alisno included the Fcon-e$ance and transfer of the water
rights and impro-ementsF appurtenant to Honorata .drianoEs propert$. =$ the terms of
the Aeed of .!solute ;ale the -endor Honorata .driano Brancisco sold ceded
con-e$ed and transferred to Ar. Nicolas 1alisno all Frights title interest and
participations o-er the parcel of land a!o-e3 descri!ed together with one =er*el$ 0odel
+ 94B Centrifugal Pump GF suction +F discharge &%%3'&%% GP0 with ;erial No.
&D'&8'2 and one ?'@ set of suction pipe and discharge of pipe with el!ow nipples
flanges and foot-al-esF and the water rights and such other impro-ements appertaining
to the propert$ su!"ect of this sale. .ccording to 1alisno the water right was the
primar$ consideration for his purchase of HonorataEs propert$ for without it the propert$
would !e unproducti-e.
8ater rights such as the right to use a drainage ditch for irrigation purposes which are
appurtenant to a parcel of land pass with the con-e$ance of the land although not
specificall$ mentioned in the con-e$ance. #he purchaserEs easement of necessit$ in a
water ditch running across the grantorEs land cannot !e defeated e-en if the water is
supplied !$ a third person. #he fact that an easement !$ grant ma$ also ha-e qualified
as an easement of necessit$ does detract from its permanenc$ as propert$ right which
sur-i-es the determination of the necessit$. .s an easement of waters in fa-or of
1alisno has !een esta!lished he is entitled to en"o$ it free from o!struction distur!ance
or wrongful interference ?'6 C2 68D@ such as .driano/s act of le-elling the irrigation
canal to depri-e him of the use of water from the Pampanga 4i-er.
Ro4D5$o, et. a. v. Ro%o, et. a.
G.R. No. L-10719, *ebr5ar' 28, 1958, 103 ;6$. 8!
3o4tema'or, (.
*+,-S. Plaintiff Leogario 4onquillo ha-e !een in the continuous and uninterrupted use
of a road which tra-ersed the land of the defendants 4ocos in going to )gualdad ;treet
and the mar*et place of Naga Cit$ for more than 2% $ears and that the 4ocos ha-e long
recognized and respected the pri-ate legal easement of a right of wa$ of said plaintiffs.
'%'
7n 0a$ '2 '6&5 the defendants along with a num!er of men maliciousl$ o!structed
plaintiff/s right of wa$ !$ constructing a chapel in the middle of the said road and then
later !$ means of force intimidation and threats illegall$ and -iolentl$ planted wooden
posts fenced with !ar!ed wire and closed hermiticall$ the road passage wa$ there!$
pre-enting the plaintiff from using it.
#he plaintiff claims that he has alread$ acquired the easement of right of wa$ o-er the
land thru prescription !$ his continuous and uninterrupted use of the narrow strip of land
as passage wa$. Howe-er plaintiff/s complaint was dismissed !$ the CB).
/SS01. 8hether or not an easement of right of wa$ can !e acquired !$ prescription.
H1L2. No. #he Court held than an easement of right of wa$ ma$ not !e acquired thru
prescription !ecause though it ma$ !e apparent it is ne-ertheless discontinuous or
intermittent and therefore under .rticle +22 of the New Ci-il Code can !e acquired
onl$ !$ a -irtue of a title. Burthermore a right of wa$ cannot !e acquired !$ prescription
!ecause prescription requires that the possession !e continuous and uninterrupted.
-a?edo v. )er4ad
G.R. No. L-77520 +5g5st 30, 1988, 175 S,R+ 87
;ad$a, (.
*+,-S. Pri-ate respondent .ntonio Cardenas owned Lot 7&%'3. and Lot 7&%'3=. 7n
the said two lots a septic tan* was constructed for the common use of the occupants of
!oth lots. Cardenas sold Lot 7&%'3. to herein petitioner #aNedo and the other Lot 7&%'3
= was also mortgaged to #aNedo as a securit$ for the pa$ment of loan with an
agreement that Cardenas would onl$ sell Lot 7&%'3= to him. Howe-er said Lot 7&%'3=
was sold to herein respondent ;pouses 4omeo and Pacita ;im. Cpon learning of the
said sale #aNedo offered to redeem the propert$ from ;im !ut the latter refused.
)nstead ;im !loc*ed the sewage pipe connecting the !uilding of :duardo #aNedo !uilt
on Lot 7&%'3. to the septic tan* in Lot 7&%'3=. He also as*ed #aNedo to remo-e that
portion of his !uilding enroaching on Lot 7&%'3=. #aNedo was then constrained to file an
action for legal redemption and damages in-o*ing .rticle '+22 of the Ci-il Code. 7n the
other hand respondent ;pouses claimed the$ are the a!solute owners of Lot 7&%'3=
and that :duardo #aNedo has no right to redeem the land under .rt. '+22 of the Ci-il
Code as the land sought to !e redeemed is much !igger than the land owned !$
#aNedo.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioner/s right to continue to use the septic tan* erected
on Lot 7&%'3= ceased upon the su!di-ision of the land and its su!sequent sale to
different owners who do not ha-e the same interest.
'%2
H1L2. No. .ppl$ing .rticle +5' and +2D of the Ci-il Code no statement a!olishing or
e,tinguishing the easement of drainage was mentioned in the deed of sale of Lot 7&%'3
. to :duardo #aNedo. Nor did .ntonio Cardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and
septic tan* !$ the occupants of Lot 7&%'3. !efore he sold said lot to :duardo #afiedo.
Hence the use of the septic tan* is continued !$ operation of law. .ccordingl$ the
spouses 4omeo and Pacita ;im the new owners of the ser-ient estate ?Lot 7&%'3 =@
cannot impair in an$ manner whatsoe-er the use of the ser-itude.
,ostabea ,orporat$o4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 80511 (a45ar' 25, 1991, 193 S,R+ 333
Sarm$e4to, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner owns the real estate properties situated at ;itio =u$ong 0ari!ago
Lapu3Lapu Cit$ on which it had constructed a resort and hotel. #he pri-ate
respondents on the other hand are the owners of ad"oining properties. =efore the
petitioner !egan the construction of its !each hotel the pri-ate respondents in going to
and from their respecti-e properties and the pro-incial road passed through a
passagewa$ which tra-ersed the petitionerEs propert$. )n '68' the petitioner closed the
aforementioned passagewa$ when it !egan the construction of its hotel !ut
nonetheless opened another route across its propert$ through which the pri-ate
respondents as in the past were allowed to pass. Later or sometime in .ugust '682
when it undertoo* the construction of the second phase of its !each hotel the petitioner
fenced its propert$ thus closing e-en the alternati-e passagewa$ and pre-enting the
pri-ate respondents from tra-ersing an$ part of it. #herefore an action for in"unction
with damages was filed against the petitioner !$ the pri-ate respondents !efore the then
Court of Birst )nstance of Ce!u.
#he CB) rendered a decision on 0arch '& '68D finding that the pri-ate respondents
had acquired a -ested right o-er the passagewa$ in contro-ers$ !ased on its long
e,istence and its continued use and en"o$ment !$ the pri-ate respondents and also !$
the communit$ at large. 7n appeal .ppellate Court held as without !asis the trial
courtEs finding that the pri-ate respondents had acquired a -ested right o-er the
passagewa$ in question !$ -irtue of prescription. #he appellate court pointed out that an
easement of right of wa$ is a discontinuous one which under .rticle +22 of the New
Ci-il Code ma$ onl$ !e acquired !$ -irtue of a title and not !$ prescription. #hat
notwithstanding the appellate court went on to rule that F. . . in the interest of "ustice and
in the e,ercise !$ this Court of its equit$ "urisdiction there is no reason for Cs in not
treating the easement here sought !$ appellees Satipunan Lum!er Co. )nc. and
Perfecta Guangco as one that is not dependent upon the claims of the parties !ut a
compulsor$ one that is legall$ demanda!le !$ the owner of the dominant estate from
the owner of the ser-ient estate.F
/SS01. 8hether or not the easement ma$ !e granted to pri-ate respondent o-er the
land of Costa!ella.
'%5
H1L2. No. )t is alread$ well3esta!lished that an easement of right of wa$ as is in-ol-ed
here is discontinuous and as such can not !e acquired !$ prescription. )nsofar
therefore as the appellate court adhered to the foregoing precepts it stood correct.
Cnfortunatel$ after ma*ing the correct pronouncement the respondent .ppellate Court
did not order the re-ersal of the trial courtEs decision and the dismissal of the complaint
after holding that no easement had !een -alidl$ constituted o-er the petitionerEs
propert$. )nstead the .ppellate Court went on to commit a re-ersi!le error !$
considering the passagewa$ in issue as a compulsor$ easement which the pri-ate
respondents as owners of the FdominantF estate ma$ demand from the petitioner the
latter !eing the owner of the Fser-ientF estate.
=ased on .rticles +D6 and +&% of the Ci-il Code the owner of the dominant estate ma$
-alidl$ claim a compulsor$ right of wa$ onl$ after he has esta!lished the e,istence of
four requisites to wit< ?'@ the ?dominant@ estate is surrounded !$ other immo-a!les and
is without adequate outlet to a pu!lic highwa$> ?2@ after pa$ment of the proper
indemnit$> ?5@ the isolation was not due to the proprietorEs own acts> and ?D@ the right of
wa$ claimed is at a point least pre"udicial to the ser-ient estate. )n the case at !ar there
is a!sent an$ showing that the pri-ate respondents had esta!lished the e,istence of the
four requisites mandated !$ law.
14%ar4a%$o4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 77728, 3ar%6 11, 1991, 195 S,R+ 7!
*er4a4, ,.(.
*+,-S. Petitioner owns the dominant estate !ounded on north !$ the ser-ient estate
owned !$ respondents and an estate owned !$ 0agsino all of which are located in
#alisa$ =atangas. #he ser-ient estate is !ound on the north !$ the national highwa$.
#o pro-ide access to the highwa$ a one meter road path was pa-ed through in which
half of its width was ta*en from the estate of 0agsino and the other half from the estate
of the respondent. Petitioner started a nurser$ plant t$pe of !usiness in which pushcarts
were used to haul the plants from his estate to and from his nurser$ and the highwa$
using the one meter road path. .s his !usiness grew he !ought a "eepne$ to ena!le
him to transport more plants and soil catering to the now !igger demand. #he pro!lem
howe-er was that the "eepne$ cannot pass through the road path since its width would
not !e accommodated !$ a one meter width. Petitioner made a request upon the
respondent to sell to him ' X meters of their propert$ so that the pathwa$ ma$ !e
widened to ena!le his "eepne$ to pass through. #he respondents refused. Petitioner
went to court pra$ing that he would !e granted the additional land to the right of wa$
alread$ constituted !ut the trial court rendered a decision ad-erse to the petitioner
!ecause there was no such necessit$ as it was shown that there was the presence of
dried ri-er !ed onl$ 8% meters awa$ from the propert$ of the petitioner which he ma$
use as an alternati-e route. #he C. affirmed said decision of the trial court.
'%D
/SS01. 8hether or not petitioner is entitled to !e granted his pra$er to !u$ the
additional land to increase the e,isting one meter road path.
H1L2. 9es. :-en with the presence of the dried ri-er !ed upon thorough in-estigation
it was found to !e an inadequate right of wa$ !ecause a concrete !ridge tra-erses it
there!$ the "eep would ha-e to "ump o-er said !ridge which has a height of & meters in
order to reach the highwa$. )t was also found that during the rain$ season the same
was impassa!le as it !ecame flooded. #his right of wa$ could not pro-ide adequate
access to the highwa$ there!$ when an estate has no access to a pu!lic road it ma$
demand for a right of wa$. Burthermore under .rticle +&' of the Ci-il Code it is the
needs of the dominant propert$ which ultimatel$ determine the width of the right of wa$.
)n this case since the !usiness of the petitioner grew larger and pushcarts !ecame
tedious to transport his nurser$ plants it !ecame necessar$ for him to do so with a
"eepne$. .nd in order to efficientl$ ma*e such transportation of his plants the right of
wa$ had to !e widened to accommodate the width of the "eepne$ of the petitioner. #he
petitioner thus shall !e granted the additional land to the e,isting right of wa$.
,ase v. He$rs o# -5aso4
G.R. No. L-50!!, 2e%ember 1, 1909, 1! ;6$. 521
-orres, (.
*+,-S. #he counsel for the heirs of Pa!lo #uason and Leocadia ;anti!aNez alleged
that the parties whom he represents are owners in common of the propert$ ad"oining
that of the petitioner :dwin Case on the southwest. #he latter e,tended his southwest
!oundar$ line to a portion of the lot of the said heirs of #uason and ;anti!aNez. #he$
alleged that the true di-iding line !etween the propert$ of the petitioner and that of the
said heirs is a !elonging to the respondents and that a!out two $ears ago when Case
made alterations in the !uildings erected on his land he improperl$ caused a portion of
them to rest on the wall owned !$ the respondents.
/SS01. 8hether or not the wall is the propert$ of the heirs of the late #uason and
;anti!aNez.
H1L2. #he wall in contro-ers$ !elongs to the heirs of the late #uason and ;anti!aNez
for the reason among others that in the pu!lic document !$ which one of their original
ancestors acquired on the '6th of .pril '76+ the propert$ now possessed !$ them it
appears that propert$ was then alread$ inclosed !$ a stone wall.
#he wall supports onl$ the propert$ of the respondents and not that of the petitioner
can not !e a part$ wall one3half of which along its entire length would !elong to the
ad"oining !uilding owned !$ 0r. Case. #here is not sufficient proof to sustain such
claim and !esides the !uilding erected thereon dispro-es the pretension of the
petitioner.
'%&
Cnder article &72 of the Ci-il Code the easement of part$ walls is presumed unless
there is a title or e,terior sign or proof to the contrar$ among others in di-iding walls
ad"oining !uildings up to the common point of ele-ation.
#he legal presumption as to part$ walls is limited to the three cases dealt with in the
said article of the code and is that of juris tantum unless the contrar$ appear from the
title of ownership of the ad"oining properties that is to sa$ that the entire wall in
contro-ers$ !elongs to one of the propert$ owners or where there is no e,terior sign to
destro$ such presumption and support a presumption against the part$ wall.
)t can not !e presumed that the aforesaid portion was a part$ wall and that it was not
e,clusi-el$ owned !$ the respondents inasmuch as the latter ha-e pro-en !$ means of
a good title that has not !een impugned !$ the petitioner that when one of their
ancestors and principals acquired the propert$ the lot was alread$ inclosed !$ the wall
on which the !uilding was erected> it must therefore !e understood that in the purchase
of the propert$ the wall !$ which the land was inclosed was necessaril$ included.
,6o%o v. Sa4tamar$a
G.R. No. 7077, 2e%ember 29, 1911, 21 ;6$. 132
3apa, (.
*+,-S. #he defendant in the !uilding of his house has made se-eral openings and
windows in the walls of the house on !oth sides o-erloo*ing then propert$ of the
plaintiff> that at the time the defendant was !uilding his house and the windows and the
openings were !eing made the plaintiffs protested and later on and in the $ear '6%&
made written protest and demand on the defendant and the defendant recei-ed the
written protest and referred it to his counsel who from the e-idence appears to ha-e
suggested an amica!le and ad"ustment of the matter !ut the ad"ustment was not made
and this action was !rought. #he #rial Court rendered "udgment in fa-or of the plaintiffs
;e-erina and Blora Choco and against the defendant )sidro ;antamaria fore-er
prohi!iting the opening of the window stated which must !e closed and fore-er
prohi!iting the opening of the windows and openings mar*ed which must !e closed or
made to conform to the requirements of law with regard to dimensions and an iron grate
em!edded in the wall with the costs of the action.
/SS01. 8hether or not the lower court erred !$ not ordering in his "udgment the final
and perpetual closing of the large window opened in the !alcon$ of the !ac* part of the
appelleeEs house and that though the appellantEs lot can !e seen through the window it
is not contiguous to the latterEs propert$.
H1L2. #o "udge from the photographic -iews it opens on the !oundar$ line !etween
the said lot and that the appellee and is situated perpendicularl$ a!o-e a part of the wall
that !elongs to the appellants. #his opinion is corro!orated !$ the testimon$ of the
defendantEs witness who too* the said photographs in so far as he said that Fa part of
'%+
the window in question is in front of the plaintiffsE propert$ since !etween it and the
plaintiffsE propert$ there does not inter-ene the distance required !$ law G that of two
meters in the first case and +% centimeters in the second therefore its opening is a
manifest -iolation of the pro-isions of article &82 of the Ci-il Code which reads as
follows< G8indows with direct -iews or !alconies or an$ similar openings pro"ecting
o-er the estate of the neigh!or cannot !e made if there is not a distance of at least 2
meters !etween the wall in which the$ are !uilt and said estate. Neither can side nor
o!lique -iews !e opened o-er said propert$ unless there is a distance of +%
centimeters.J =ecause of the lac* of the distance required !$ law the window in
question must !e closed and consequentl$ the "udgment appealed from should !e
modified in this sense as regards this window.
So$d 3a4$a ,orporat$o4 v. )$o Ho4g -rad$4g ,o., /4%.
G.R. No. 90597, +pr$ 8, 1991, 195 S,R+ 7!8
Sarm$e4to, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner ;olid 0anila Corporation is the owner of the land in :rmita 0anila.
#he same lies in the -icinit$ of another parcel registered in the name of the pri-ate
respondent =io Hong #rading Co. )nc. #he pri-ate respondent/s title came from a prior
owner and in their deed of sale the parties thereto reser-ed as easement of wa$. .s a
consequence there is an annotation which was entered wherein a construction of
pri-ate alle$ has !een underta*en. Howe-er the petitioner a-erred that the$ and their
neigh!ors ha-e !een using the pri-ate alle$ and maintained and contri!uted to its
up*eep until sometime in '685. Aue to this the pri-ate respondent constructed steel
gates that precluded unhampered used. #he petitioner commenced suit for in"unction
against the pri-ate respondent to ha-e the gates remo-ed and to allow full access to the
easement. #he court a quo issued e, parte an order directing the pri-ate respondent to
open the gates. Howe-er the Court of .ppeals ordered the restoration of the
annotation. #he$ ruled that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership and that it
does not impair the pri-ate respondent/s title and that since the pri-ate respondent had
acquired title to the propert$ ImergerJ !rought a!out an e,tinguishment of the
easement. #he petitioner then a-erred that the -er$ deed of sale e,ecuted !etween the
pri-ate respondent and the pre-ious owner of the propert$ Ie,cludedJ the alle$ in
question and that in an$ e-ent the intent of the parties was to retain the Ialle$J as an
easement notwithstanding the sale.
/SS01. 8hether or not an easement had !een e,tinguished !$ merger.
H1L2. No. #he Court held that no genuine merger too* place as a consequence of the
sale in fa-or of the pri-ate respondent corporation. .ccording to the Ci-il Code a
merger e,ists when ownership of the dominant and ser-ient estates is consolidated in
the same person. 0erger then as can !e seen requires full ownership of !oth estates.
7ne thing ought to !e noted here howe-er. #he ser-itude in question is a personal
ser-itude that is to sa$ one constituted not in fa-or of a particular tenement !ut rather
'%7
for the !enefit of the general pu!lic as stated in .rticle +'D of the Ci-il Code. )n personal
ser-itude there is therefore no Iowner of a dominant tenementJ to spea* of and the
easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate in this case the pu!lic at
large. 0erger as we said presupposes the e,istence of a prior ser-ient3dominant
owner relationship and the termination of that relation lea-es the easement of no use.
Cnless the owner con-e$s the propert$ in fa-or of the pu!lic if that is possi!le no
genuine merger can ta*e place that would terminate a personal easement.
*oro v. Le4ado
G.R. No. 75723, (54e 2, 1995, 2!! S,R+ 713
Romeo, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner ;imeon Bloro is the owner of Bloro Par* ;u!di-ision who has its own
egress and ingress to and from the 0ac .rthur Highwa$ !$ means of its 4oad Lot D and
the PN4 le-el crossing. 7n the other hand 4espondent 7rlando Llenado is the
registered owner of Llenado Homes ;u!di-ision ad"acent to Bloro Par* ;u!di-ision.
Prior to its purchase !$ Llenado the land was *nown as the :mmanuel Homes
;u!di-ision a dul$ licensed and registered housing su!di-ision in the name of ;oledad
7rtega. =ounded on the ;outh !$ the & to + meter3wide Palanas Cree* which
separates it from the Bloro Par* ;u!di-ision and on the west !$ ricelands !elonging to
0arcial )papo. the Llenado Homes does not ha-e an$ e,isting road or passage to the
0ac .rthur Highwa$. Howe-er a proposed access road tra-ersing the idle riceland of
0arcial )papo has !een specificall$ pro-ided in the su!di-ision plan of the :mmanuel
Homes ;u!di-ision which was dul$ appro-ed !$ the defunct Human ;ettlement
4egulator$ Commission. 0eanwhile the Llenados sought and were granted permission
!$ the Bloros to use 4oad Lots D and & of the Bloro Par* ;u!di-ision as passagewa$ to
and from 0ac.rthur Highwa$. Howe-er no contract of easement of right of wa$ was
e-er perfected !$ !oth parties. Later Bloro !arricaded 4oad Lot & with a pile of roc*s
wooden posts and ado!e stones there!$ pre-enting its use !$ the Llenados. Llenado
instituted a complaint !efore the 4#C of 0alolos =ulacan against Bloro for easement of
right of wa$. #he 4#C granted the pra$er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar$
mandator$ in"unction and ordered Bloro to open the road and pa$ damages. #hereafter
the trial court rendered another "udgment dismissing the case and lifting the writ of
preliminar$ mandator$ in"unction pre-iousl$ issued and ordered the plaintiff to pa$
defendant damages and costs. 7n appeal !$ Llenado on the C. the "udgment of the
4#C was re-ersed ordering Bloro to open roads D and & and remo-e all the o!"ects that
pre-ent passage on road & and to pa$ the plaintiff damages with costs and pa$ment of
indemnit$ for the easement of right of wa$.
/SS01. 8hether or not Llenado is entitled to a compulsor$ easement of right of wa$.
H1L2. No. Bor the Llenados to !e entitled to a compulsor$ ser-itude of right of wa$
under the Ci-il Code the preconditions pro-ided under .rticles +D6 and +&% thereof
must !e esta!lished. #hese preconditions are< ?'@ that the dominant estate is
'%8
surrounded !$ other immo-a!les and has no adequate outlet to a pu!lic highwa$ ?.rt.
+D6 par. '@> ?2@ after pa$ment of proper indemnit$ ?.rt. +D6 par. '@> ?5@ that the
isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate ?.rt. +D6 last par.@>
and ?D@ that the right of wa$ claimed is at the point least pre"udicial to the ser-ient
estate> and insofar as consistent with this rule where the distance from the dominant
estate to a pu!lic highwa$ ma$ !e the shortest ?.rt. +&%@.
#he !urden of pro-ing the e,istence of the prerequisites to -alidl$ claim a compulsor$
right of wa$ lies on the owner of the dominant estate. 7n the past su!di-ision plans !$
:mmanuel Homes which is !ought !$ Llenado there is an indication of an access road
through )P.P7/s propert$ although it was not properl$ pa-ed a dirt road will suffice.
;eeing this Llenado has failed to compl$ with the first requirement. )f the ser-itude
requested !$ Llenado is allowed other su!di-ision de-elopersHowners would !e
encouraged to hastil$ prepare a su!di-ision plan with fictitious pro-isions for access
roads merel$ for registration purposes. Burthermore if such practice were tolerated the
-er$ purpose for which Presidential Aecree No. 6&7 was enacted that is to protect
su!di-ision !u$ers from unscrupulous su!di-ision ownersHde-elopers who renege on
their duties to de-elop their su!di-isions in accordance with the dul$ appro-ed
su!di-ision plans would !e defeated.
)n order to "ustif$ the imposition of the ser-itude of right of wa$ there must !e a real not
a fictitious or artificial necessit$ for it. 0ere con-enience for the dominant estate is not
what is required !$ law as the !asis for setting up a compulsor$ easement. :-en in the
face of a necessit$ if it can !e satisfied without imposing the ser-itude the same should
not !e imposed.
#he complaint for easement of right of wa$ filed !$ Llenado in the lower court did not
contain a pra$er for the fi,ing of the amount that he must pa$ Bloro in the e-ent that the
easement of right of wa$ is constituted. #hus the e,istence of the second requisite has
li*ewise not !een esta!lished. Pri-ate respondent Llenado admitted that the )papo
riceland was no longer !eing culti-ated. )ndications are that it has alread$ !een
a!andoned as a ricefield. #here was no reason for pri-ate respondentEs failure to
de-elop the right of wa$ e,cept the incon-enience and e,penses it would cost him.
Hence the third requisite has not !een met. Bailing to esta!lish the e,istence of the
prerequisites under .rticles +D6 and +&% of the Ci-il Code pri-ate respondent LlenadoEs
!id for a compulsor$ easement of right of wa$ o-er 4oad Lots D and & of the Bloro Par*
;u!di-ision must fail.
<5$me4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 112331 3a' 29, 1997, 257 S,R+ 173
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner .nastacia Muimen together with her !rothers ;otero ;ulpicio
.ntonio and sister 4ufina inherited a piece of propert$ situated in Pandi =ulacan. #he$
'%6
agreed to su!di-ide the propert$ equall$ among themsel-es as the$ did with the
shares of .nastacia ;otero ;ulpicio and 4ufina a!utting the municipal road. Located
directl$ !ehind the lots of .nastacia and ;otero is the share of their !rother .ntonio
designated as Lot No. 'DD83=3C which the latter di-ided into two ?2@ equal parts now
Lots Nos. 'DD83=3+3. and 'DD83=3+3=. #he latter Lot is !ehind the propert$ of ;otero
father of pri-ate respondent 9olanda 7li-eros. 9olanda purchased Lot No. 'DD83=3+3.
from her uncle .ntonio through her aunt .nastacia who was then acting as his
administratri,. .ccording to 9olanda when petitioner offered her the propert$ for sale
she was hesitant to !u$ as it had no access to a pu!lic road. =ut .nastacia pre-ailed
upon her to !u$ the lot with the assurance that she would gi-e her a right of wa$ on her
ad"oining propert$. #hereafter 9olanda constructed a house on the lot she !ought using
as her passagewa$ to the pu!lic highwa$ a portion of .nastaciaEs propert$. =ut when
9olanda finall$ offered to pa$ for the use of the pathwa$ .nastacia refused to accept the
pa$ment. )n fact she was thereafter !arred !$ .nastacia from passing through her
propert$.

Later 9olanda purchased the other lot of .ntonio Muimen Lot No. 'DD83=3+3
= located directl$ !ehind the propert$ of her parents who pro-ided her a pathwa$
!etween their house from the lot of 9olanda !ehind the sari sari store of ;otero and
.nastaciaEs perimeter fence. #he store is made of strong materials and occupies the
entire frontage of the lot measuring four ?D@ meters wide and nine meters ?6@ long.
.lthough the pathwa$ leads to the municipal road it is not adequate for ingress and
egress. #he municipal road cannot !e reached with facilit$ !ecause the store itself
o!structs the path so that one has to pass through the !ac* entrance and the facade of
the store to reach the road. Binall$ 9olanda filed an action with the proper court pra$ing
for a right of wa$ through .nastaciaEs propert$. #he report was that the proposed right of
wa$ was at the e,treme right of .nastaciaEs propert$ facing the pu!lic highwa$ starting
from the !ac* of ;oteroEs sari3sari store and e,tending inward !$ one ?'@ meter to her
propert$ and turning left for a!out fi-e ?&@ meters to a-oid the store. Howe-er the trial
court dismissed her complaint. #he Court of .ppeals re-ersed the decision declaring
that she was entitled to a right of wa$ on petitioner/s propert$ and that the wa$ proposed
!$ 9oland would cause the least damage and detriment to the ser-ient estate.
/SS01. 8hether or not passing through the propert$ of 9olandaEs parents is more
accessi!le to the pu!lic road than to ma*e a detour to her propert$ and cut down the
a-ocado tree standing thereon.
H1L2. 9es. #he conditions sine /uo non for a -alid grant of an easement of right of wa$
are< ?a@ the dominant estate is surrounded !$ other immo-a!les without an adequate
outlet to a pu!lic highwa$> ?!@ the dominant estate is willing to pa$ the proper indemnit$>
?c@ the isolation was not due to the acts of the dominant estate> and ?d@ the right of wa$
!eing claimed is at a point least pre"udicial to the ser-ient estate.
#he criterion of least pre"udice to the ser-ient estate must pre-ail o-er the criterion of
shortest distance although this is a matter of "udicial appreciation. 8hile shortest
distance ma$ ordinaril$ impl$ least pre"udice it is not alwa$s so as when there are
permanent structures o!structing the shortest distance> while on the other hand the
longest distance ma$ !e free of o!structions and the easiest or most con-enient to pass
''%
through. )n other words where the easement ma$ !e esta!lished on an$ of se-eral
tenements surrounding the dominant estate the one where the wa$ is shortest and will
cause the least damage should !e chosen. Howe-er as elsewhere stated if these two
?2@ circumstances do not concur in a single tenement the wa$ which will cause the least
damage should !e used e-en if it will not !e the shortest.
.s !etween a right of wa$ that would demolish a store of strong materials to pro-ide
egress to a pu!lic highwa$ and another right of wa$ which although longer will onl$
require an a-ocado tree to !e cut down the second alternati-e should !e preferred.
2e (es5s, et. a. v. Homart ,orporat$o4, et. a.
G.R. No. !!191 B R, +5g5st 28, 197!, 19 ,+ Rep. 831
*+,-S. 2esus and Luz 0iranda de 2esus are owners of the !uilding located in #ondo
0anila. #he$ !rought an action for damages against Homart Corporation and Howmill
0anufacturing Corporation owners of the land ad"oining the plaintiff on the same street
where a si,t$ store$ concrete !uilding was constructed. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants failed to o!ser-e the necessar$ care and precautions to protect the
construction of the plaintiffs !$ depri-ing it of sufficient lateral or su!"acent support
there!$ causing it to sin* in some parts> its walls ceilings and floorings to crac* in
some places> and !$ the careless manner of handling the cement used the roofing/s of
the !uilding of the plaintiff were damaged with the accumulated de!ris piled thereon.
/SS01. 8hether or not proper precautions had !een ta*en !$ the defendants in
constructing the !uilding in question so as to pre-ent causing damage to the !uilding of
the plaintiff.
H1L2. No. .rticle +8D of the New Ci-il Code pro-ides INo propert$ shall ma*e such
e,ca-ations upon his land as to depri-e an$ ad"acent land or !uilding sufficient lateral or
su!"acent supportJ. . reading of .rticle +8D shows that the dut$ of an ad"acent owner
not to depri-e an$ ad"acent land or !uilding of sufficient lateral or su!"acent support is
an a!solute one. )t does not depend on the degree of care and precaution made !$ the
proprietor in ma*ing the e,ca-ation or !uilding on his land. Plaintiffs/ house which
ad"oins the se-en store$ concrete !uilding constructed !$ the defendants had sun* !$
a!out eight inches. #he sin*ing of the left side of the house of the plaintiffs was due to
the wea*ening of su!"acent support and to the weight of the se-en store$ concrete
!uilding constructed !$ the defendant as the e,ca-ation made necessaril$ distur!ed
the su!"acent soil of the plaintiff/s land. Aefendants ha-ing failed to pro-ide the plaintiff/s
land and house with sufficient lateral and su!"acent support are lia!le for damages.
La V$sta +sso%$at$o4, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
'''
G.R. No. 95252, September 5, 1997, 278 S,R+ !98
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. #he #uasons owned a -ast tract of land in Muezon Cit$ and 0ari*ina and
when the$ sold to Philippine =uilding Corporation a portion of their landholdings it was
e,pressl$ pro-ided in the Aeed of ;ale with 0ortgage that the !oundar$ line !etween
the propert$ sold and the ad"oining propert$ of the #uasons shall !e a road fifteen ?'&@
meters wide one3half of which shall !e ta*en from the propert$ sold to the Philippine
=uilding Corporation and the other half from the portion ad"oining !elonging to the
#uasons. Philippine =uilding Corporation then sold and assigned with the consent of the
#uasons the su!"ect parcel of land to .#:N:7 which assumed the mortgage and the
o!ligation in the se-en and one3half roadwa$.
7n their part the #uasons de-eloped a part of the estate ad"oining the portion sold to
Philippine =uilding Corporation into a residential -illage *nown as L. 1);#.
;u!di-ision. #hus the !oundar$ !etween L. 1);#. and the portion sold to .#:N:7
was the '&3meter wide roadwa$ *nown as the 0ang$an 4oad. #he #uasons de-eloped
its 7.&3meter share of the '&3meter wide !oundar$ while .#:N:7 deferred
impro-ement on its share and erected instead an ado!e wall on the entire length of the
!oundar$.
.#:N:7 su!sequentl$ sold to ;olid Homes )nc. the land which the latter de-eloped into
a su!di-ision now *nown as L797L. Grand 1illas. ;olid Homes )nc. now claims to
ha-e an easement of right3of3wa$ along 0ang$an 4oad through which the$ could ha-e
access to Satipunan .-enue.
L. 1);#. howe-er instructed its securit$ guards to prohi!it agents and assignees of
;olid Homes )nc. from tra-ersing 0ang$an 4oad and e-en constructed concrete
posts that pre-ented the residents of L797L. from passing through.
;olid Homes )nc. filed a case !efore the 4egional #rial Court and pra$ed that L.
1);#. !een "oined from pre-enting and o!structing the use and passage of L797L.
residents through 0ang$an 4oad. #he lower court recognized the easement of right3of3
wa$ along 0ang$an 4oad in fa-or of ;olid Homes )nc. and ordered L. 1);#. to pa$
damages. 7n appeal !$ L. 1);#. the decision of the lower court was affirmed.
/SS01. 8hether or not there is an easement of right3of3wa$ o-er 0ang$an 4oad.
H1L2. 9es. #he predecessors3in3interest of !oth L. 1);#. and ;olid Homes )nc. i.e.
the #uasons and the Philippine =uilding Corporation respecti-el$ clearl$ esta!lished a
contractual easement of right3of3wa$ o-er 0ang$an 4oad. . -oluntar$ easement is
quite e-identl$ manifested in the stipulation in the Aeed of ;ale with mortgage e,ecuted
!$ them. 8hen the easement was esta!lished !$ their contract the parties
unequi-ocall$ made pro-isions for its o!ser-ance !$ all whom in the future might
succeed them in dominion. )t is thus -er$ apparent that the parties and their respecti-e
''2
predecessors3in3interest intended to esta!lish an easement of right3of3wa$ o-er
0ang$an 4oad for their mutual !enefit !oth as dominant and ser-ient estates.
8ith this the free ingress and egress along 0ang$an 4oad created !$ the -oluntar$
agreement !etween .teneo and ;olid Homes )nc. is thus legall$ demanda!le ?.rticles
+'6 and +2& New Ci-il Code@ with the corresponding dut$ on the ser-ient estate not to
o!struct the same.
L. 1);#. contends that there are other routes to L797L. from 0ang$an 4oad
howe-er this should not !e ta*en into consideration since the opening of an adequate
outlet to a highwa$ can e,tinguish onl$ legal or compulsor$ easements not -oluntar$
easements li*e in the case at !ar. #he fact that an easement !$ grant ma$ ha-e also
qualified as an easement of necessit$ does not detract from its permanenc$ as a
propert$ right which sur-i-es the termination of the necessit$.
+%a4tara v. Reta, (r.
G.R. No. 137997, 2e%ember 1!, 2001, 372 S,R+ 37!
;ardo, (.
*+,-S. .lcantara and the other petitioners claim that the$ were tenants or lessees of
the land owned !$ 4eta. #he land has !een con-erted into a commercial center and
4eta is threatening to e"ect them. #he$ claim that since the$ are legitimate tenants or
lessees of such land the$ ha-e the right of first refusal to purchase the land in
accordance with ;ection 5?g@ of Presidential Aecree No. '&'7 the Cr!an Land 4eform
.ct. #he$ also claimed that the amica!le settlement e,ecuted !etween 4eta and
4icardo 4o!le one of the petitioners was -oid ab initio for !eing -iolati-e of PA No.
'&'7. 7n the other hand 4eta claimed that the land is question is not within the scope
of PA No. '&'7 since it was not proclaimed as an Cr!an Land 4eform Oone ?CL4O@.
.lcantara among others then filed complaint for the e,ercise of the right of first refusal
under PA No. '&'7 in the 4egional #rial Court. Howe-er such complaint was
dismissed and such dismissal was affirmed !$ the Court of .ppeals. Hence this petition
was filed.
/SS01. 8hether the .lcantara and the other petitioners ha-e the right of first refusal.
H1L2. No. #he land in-ol-ed has not !een proclaimed an Cr!an Land 4eform Oone
?CL4O@. )n fact petitioners filed a petition with the National Housing .uthorit$ requesting
that said land !e declared as an CL4O. Clearl$ the request to ha-e the land proclaimed
as an CL4O would not !e necessar$ if the propert$ was an CL4O. PA No. '&'7
pertains to areas proclaimed as CL4O. Consequentl$ petitioners cannot claim an$ right
under the said law since the land in-ol-ed is not an CL4O.
#o !e a!le to qualif$ and a-ail of the rights and pri-ileges granted !$ the said decree
one must !e< ?'@ a legitimate tenant of the land for ten ?'%@ $ears or more> ?2@ must ha-e
''5
!uilt his home on the land !$ contract> and ?5@ has resided continuousl$ for the last ten
?'%@ $ears. #hose who do not fall within the said categor$ cannot !e considered
Flegitimate tenantsF and therefore not entitled to the right of first refusal to purchase the
propert$ should the owner of the land decide to sell the same at a reasona!le price
within a reasona!le time.
4eta denies that he has lease agreements with .lcantara and 4o!le. .lcantara on the
other hand failed to present e-idence of a lease agreement other than his testimon$ in
court. 4eta allowed 4o!le to use si,t$3two ?+2@ coconut trees for P'8+ from where he
gathered tu!a. #his arrangement would show that it is a usufruct and not a lease.
4o!le was also allowed to construct his house on the land !ecause it would facilitate his
gathering of tu!a. #his would !e in the nature of a personal easement under .rticle +'D
of the Ci-il Code. 8hether the amica!le settlement is -alid or not the conclusion would
still !e the same since the agreement was one of usufruct and not of lease. #hus
4o!le is not a legitimate tenant as defined !$ PA No. '&'7.
8ith regard to the other petitioners 4eta admitted that he had -er!al agreements with
them. #his notwithstanding the$ are still not the legitimate tenants who can e,ercise the
right of first refusal under PA No. '&'7. Brom the moment 4eta demanded that the
petitioners -acate the premises the -er!al lease agreements which were on a monthl$
!asis since rentals were paid monthl$ ceased to e,ist as there was termination of the
lease.
)n conclusion none of the petitioners is qualified to e,ercise the right of first refusal
under PA No. '&'7.
#here was also no intention on the part of 4eta to sell the propert$. Hence e-en if the
petitioners had the right of first refusal the situation which would allow the e,ercise of
that right that is the sale or intended sale of the land has not happened. PA No. '&'7
applies where the owner of the propert$ intends to sell it to a third part$.
;rosper$t' ,red$t Reso5r%es, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 11!170, (a45ar' 15, 1999, 301 S,R+ 52
3e4do&a, (.
*+,-S. Pri-ate respondent 0etropolitan Ba!rics )nc. ?0B)@ and petitioner Prosperit$
Credit 4esources )nc. ?PC4)@ e,ecuted a 0emorandum of Cnderta*ing ?07C@ wherein
PC4) acceded to 0B)/s request to redeem three of the se-en lots foreclosed and won
!$ the former in the ensuing pu!lic auction. #he 07. was conditioned upon the
agreement that the petitioner shall !e gi-en a right of wa$ on the e,isting pri-ate road
which forms part of the area to !e redeemed !$ pri-ate respondents. Later PC4) filed
an in"uncti-e suit against 0B) alleging inter alia that the latter in -iolation of the terms
of the 07C refused to allow PC4) to ma*e e,ca-ations on one side of the access road
for the installation of water. #he trial court granted the petition for the issuance of the
''D
writ of preliminar$ mandator$ in"unction. 7n appeal the C. set aside the assailed order
of the trial court> hence this petition for re-iew on certiorari. PC4) contends that it is
entitled to the issuance of the writ of preliminar$ mandator$ in"unction as ma$ !e
gleaned from the following pro-ision in the 07C< #he a!o-e cited lot !eing an e,isting
pri-ate road will remain open to ingress and egress for whate-er *ind of passage in
fa-or of P47;P:4)#9 B)N.NC).L 4:;7C4C:; )NC. or its successorsYin3interest.
/SS01. 8hether or not the 4#C committed gra-e a!use of discretion in issuing a writ of
preliminar$ mandator$ in"unction ordering pri-ate respondent to allow petitioner to
underta*e e,ca-ations along the access road for the purpose of installing water pipes.
Hed. 9es. #here is no question as to the meaning of the terms IingressJ and IegressJ.
#he$ gi-e petitioner the right to use the pri-ate road as means of entr$ into and e,it
from its propert$ on the northwestern side o f the compound. #he question concerns the
meaning of the phrase Ifor whate-er *ind of passageJ. #he trial court read this phrase to
mean that petitioner had the right to ma*e e,ca-ations on the side of the access road in
order to install a networ* of pipes. #he word IpassageJ does not howe-er> Iclearl$ and
unmista*a!l$J con-e$ a meaning that includes a right to install water pipes on the
access road. #he ordinar$ meaning of the word as defined in 8e!ster/s Aictionar$ is
that act or action of passing< mo-ement or transference from one place or point to
another.J this legal meaning is not different. )t means according to =lac*/s Law
Aictionar$ the act of passing> transit> transition.
V$a45eva v. Veas%o
G.R. No. 1308!5, November 27, 2000, 3!7 S,R+ 99
<5$s5mb$4g, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner =r$an 1illanue-a is the registered owner of the parcel of land
co-ered !$ #ransfer Certificate of #itle No. '278+2 of the 4egister of Aeeds of Muezon
Cit$. He !ought it from Pacific =an*ing Corporation the mortgagee of said propert$.
8hen petitioner !ought the parcel of land there was a small house on its southeastern
portion. )t occupied one meter of the two3meter wide easement of right of wa$ the
Ga!riel spouses granted to the :spinolas predecessors3in3interest of pri-ate
respondents in a Contract of :asement of 4ight of 8a$. Cn*nown to petitioner e-en
!efore he !ought the land the Ga!riels had constructed the aforementioned small
house that encroached upon the two3meter easement. Petitioner was also unaware that
pri-ate respondents 2ulio ;e!astian and ;hirle$ Lorilla had filed on 0a$ 8 '66' for
easement. .s successors3in3interest ;e!astian and Lorilla wanted to enforce the
contract of easement. 7n .ugust '5 '66' a writ of preliminar$ mandator$ in"unction
was issued ordering the Ga!riels to pro-ide the right of wa$ and to demolish the small
house encroaching on the easement. 7n 2anuar$ & '66& 2udge #irso 1elasco issued
an .lias 8rit of Aemolition. 0eanwhile petitioner filed a #hird Part$ Claim with Pra$er
to Muash .lias 8rit of Aemolition. He maintains that the writ of demolition could not
appl$ to his propert$ since he was not a part$ to the ci-il case.
''&
/SS01. 8hether or not the easement on the propert$ !inds petitioner.
H1L2. 9es. Cnli*e other t$pes of encum!rance of real propert$ a ser-itude li*e a right
of wa$ can e,ist e-en if the$ are not e,pressl$ stated or annotated as an encum!rance
in a )orrens title !ecause ser-itudes are insepara!le from the estates to which the$
acti-el$ or passi-el$ !elong. 0oreo-er 1illanue-a was !ound !$ the contract of
easement not onl$ as a -oluntar$ easement !ut as a legal easement. . legal easement
is mandated !$ law and continues to e,ist unless its remo-al is pro-ided for in a title of
con-e$ance or the sign of the easement is remo-ed !efore the e,ecution of the
con-e$ance conforma!l$ with .rticle +D6 in accordance with .rticle +'7 of the Ci-il
Code.
Nat$o4a /rr$gat$o4 +dm$4$strat$o4 v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 11!3!8, September 20, 2000, 3!0 S,R+ 771
;ardo, (.
*+,-S. . free patent o-er 5 hectares of land in Caga$an was issued and registered in
the name of pri-ate respondent Aic* 0anglapus/ predecessor3in3interest 1icente
0anglapus. #he land was granted to the latter su!"ect to the pro-isions of sections ''5
'2' '22 and '2D of Commonwealth .ct No. 'D' which pro-ide that e,cept in fa-or of
the Go-ernment or an$ of its !ranches units or institutions the land here!$ acquired
shall !e inaliena!le and shall not !e su!"ect to encum!rance for a period of & $ears
from the date of this patent and shall not !e lia!le for the satisfaction of an$ de!t
contracted prior to the e,piration of that period. ;u!sequentl$ pri-ate respondent
0anglapus acquired the lot from 1icente 0anglapus !$ a!solute sale and was later
registered '' $ears later from the issuance of patent. 0eanwhile petitioner National
)rrigation .dministration entered into a contract with 1illamar Ae-elopment
Construction. Cnder the contract petitioner N). was to construct canals in Caga$an.
N). then entered a portion of petitioner/s land and made diggings and fillings thereon.
Pri-ate respondent then filed a complaint for damages alleging that petitioner/s diggings
and fillings destro$ed the agricultural use of his land and that no reasona!le
compensation was paid for its ta*ing.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioner N). should pa$ 0anglapus "ust compensation for
the ta*ing of a portion of his propert$ for use as easement of a right of wa$.
H1L2. No. 8e find that N). is under no o!ligation. 8e sustain the appeal. 8e agree
with N). that the #ransfer Certificate of #itle and the 7riginal Certificate of #itle co-ering
the su!"ect parcel of land contained a reser-ation granting the go-ernment a right of
wa$ o-er the land co-ered therein.
Cnder the 7riginal Certificate of #itle there was a reser-ation and condition that the
land is su!"ect to Ito all conditions and pu!lic easements and ser-itudes recognized and
''+
prescri!ed !$ law especiall$ thouse mentioned in ;ections '%6 ''% ''' ''2 ''5 and
''D Commonwealth .ct No. 'D' as amended.J #his reser-ation unli*e the other
pro-isos imposed on the grant was not limited !$ an$ time period and thus is a
su!sisting condition. ;ection ''2 Commonwealth .ct No. 'D' pro-ides that lands
granted !$ patent Ishall further !e su!"ect to a right of wa$ not e,ceeding twent$
meters in width for pu!lic highwa$s railrods irrigation ditches aqueducts telegraphs
and telephone lines and similar wor*s as the Go-ernment or an$ pu!lic or quasi3pu!lic
ser-ice or enterprises including mining or forest concessionaires ma$ reasona!l$
require for carr$ing on their !usiness with damages for the impro-ements onl$.
.rticle +'6 of the Ci-il Code pro-ides that I:asements are esta!lished either !$ law or
!$ the will of the owners. #he former are called legal and the latter -oluntar$
easements.J )n the present case we find and declare that a legal easement of a right3
of3wa$ e,ists in fa-or of the go-ernment. #he land was originall$ pu!lic land and
awarded to respondent 0anglapus !$ free patent. #he ruling would !e otherwise if the
land were originall$ pri-ate propert$ in which case "ust compensation must !e paid for
the ta*ing of a part thereof for pu!lic use as an easement of a right of wa$.
Remma4 14terpr$ses, /4%. v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 125018, +pr$ 7, 2000, 330 S,R+ 1!5
)eos$o, (.
*+,-S. Petitioner 4emman :nterprises )nc. and pri-ate respondent Crispin Lat are
ad"oining landowners in Lipa Cit$. #he land of Lat is agricultural and planted mostl$ with
fruit trees while 4emman/s land is de-oted to its pigger$ !usiness. #he latter/s land is '
X meters higher in ele-ation than that of respondent Lat. 0eanwhile respondent
noticed that petitioner/s waste disposal lagoon was alread$ o-erflowing and inundating
Z of Lat/s plantation. He made se-eral representations with petitioner !ut the$ fell on
deaf ears. Consequentl$ the trees growing on the flooded portion where it was
inundated with water containing pig manure started to wither and die. Pri-ate
respondent then filed a complaint for damages alleging that the acidit$ of the soil in his
plantation increased !ecause of the o-erflow of the water hea-$ with pig manure from
petitioner/s pigger$ farm. Petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the
construction of additional lagoons was alread$ adopted to contain the waste water
coming from its pigger$ to pre-ent an$ damage to the ad"oining estate. Petitioner also
argued that the damages if an$ were due to a fortuitous e-ent.
/SS01. 8hether or not the damages were due to a fortuitous e-ent.
H1L2. No. 8e cannot agree with petitioner. 8e defer instead to the findings opions
e,pressed !$ the lower courts< :-en assuming that the hea-$ rains constituted an act of
God> !$ reason of their negligence the fortuitous e-ent !ecame humanized rendering
appellants lia!le for the ensuing damges. )n National Power Corporation -. Court of
.ppeals 255 ;C4. +D6 ?'665@ the ;upreme Court held< I.ccordingl$ petitioners
''7
cannot !e heard to in-o*e the act of God or force ma"eure to escape lia!ilit$ for the loss
or damages sustained !$ pri-ate respondents since the$ the petitioners were guilt$ of
negligence. #his e-ent then was not occasioned e,clusi-el$ !$ an act of God or force
ma"eure> a human factor P negligence or imprudence P had inter-ened. #he effect tehn
of the force ma"eure in question ma$ !e deemed to ha-e e-en if onl$ partl$ resulted
from the participation of man. #hus the whole occurrence was there!$ humanized as it
were and remo-ed from the rules applica!le to acts of God.J
.s regards the alleged natural easement imposed upon the propert$ of appelle resort
to pertinent pro-isions of applica!le law is imperati-e. Cnder .rticle +57 of the Ci-il
Code it is pro-ided that Ilower estates are o!liged to recei-e the waters which naturall$
and without the inter-ention of man descend from the higher estates as well as the
stones or earth which the$ carr$ with them. #he owner of the lower estate cannot
construct wor*s which will impede this easement> neither can the owner of the higher
estate ma*e wor*s which will increase the !urden.J
. similar pro-ion is found under .rticle &% of the 8ater Code of the Philippines ?P.A.
No. '%+7@ which pro-ides that Ilower estates are o!liged to recei-e the water which
naturall$ and without the inter-ention of man flow from the higher estates as well as the
stone or eath which the$ carr$ with them. #he owner of the lower estate cannot
construct wor*s which will impede this natural flow unless he pro-ides an alternati-e
method of drainage> neither can the owner of the higher estate ma*e wor*s which will
increase this natural flow.J
.s worded the two aforecited pro-isions impose a natural easement upon the lower
estate to recei-e the waters which naturall$ and without the inter-ention of man
descend from higher estates. Howe-er where the waters which flow from a higher
estate are those which are artificiall$ collected in man3made lagoons an$ damage
occasioned there!$ entitles the owner of the lower or ser-ient estate to compensation.
(es5s $s Lord ,6r$st$a4 S%6oo *o54dat$o4, /4%. v. 354$%$pa$t' H4oE ,$t'I o#
;as$g, 3etro 3a4$a
G.R. No. 152230, +5g5st 9, 2005, !77 S,R+ 235
,ae@o, Sr., (.
*+,-S. 4espondent 0unicipalit$ of Pasig needed an access road from :.4. ;antos
;treet a municipal road near the Pasig Pu!lic 0ar*et to =aranga$ ;to. #omas =u*id
Pasig where +% to 7% houses mostl$ made of light materials were located. #he road
has to !e at least three meters in width as required !$ the Bire Code so that fire truc*s
could pass through in case of conflagration. Li*ewise the residents in the area needed
the road for water and electrical outlets. #he municipalit$ then decided to acquire &'
square meters out of the '76' square meter propert$ of Lorenzo Ching Cuanco 1ictor
Ching Cuanco and :rnesto Ching Cuanco Sho which is a!utting :.4. ;antos ;treet.
''8
0eanwhile the ;angguniang =a$an of Pasig appro-ed an 7rdinance authorizing the
municipal ma$or to initiate e,propriation proceedings to acquire the said propert$ and
appropriate the fund therefore. #he ordinance stated that the propert$ owners were
notified of the municipalit$/s intent to purchase the propert$ for pu!lic use as an access
road !ut the$ re"ected the offer. #he municipalit$ then filed a complaint against the
Cuancos for the e,propriation of the propert$ under ;ection '6 of the 4epu!lic .ct No.
7'+% or otherwise *nown as the Local Go-ernment Code. #he Cuancos then contended
that the$ had sold the said propert$ to petitioner 2esus is the Lord Christian ;chool
Boundation )nc. ?2)LC;B)@ as e-idenced !$ a deed of sale. 8hen apprised a!out the
complaint petitioner 2)LC;B) filed a motion for lea-e to inter-ene as defendant3in3
inter-ention which was granted.
#he petitioner 2)LC;B) asserted that the respondent must compl$ with the requirements
for the esta!lishment of an easement of right3of3wa$ more specificall$ the road must
!e constructed at the point lease pre"udicial to the ser-ient state and that there must !e
no adequate outlet to a pu!lic highwa$. #he petitioner also claimed that the portion of
the lot sought to !e e,propriated is located at the middle protion of the petitioner/s entire
parcel of land there!$ splitting the lot into two hal-es and ma*ing it impossi!le for the
petitioner to put up its school !uilding and worship center.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioner 2)LC;B)/s contentions are tena!le.
H1L2. No. #he su!"ect propert$ is e,propriated for the purpose of constructing a road.
#he respondent is not mandated to compl$ with the essential requisites for an easement
of right3of3wa$ under the New Ci-il Code. Case law has it that in the a!sence of
legislati-e restriction the grantee of the power of eminent domain ma$ determine the
location and route of the land to !e ta*en unless such determination is capricious and
wantonl$ in"urious. :,propriation is "ustified so long as it is for the pu!lic good and there
is genuine necessit$ of pu!lic character. Go-ernmentma$ not capriciousl$ choose what
pri-ate propert$ should !e ta*en.
#he respondent has demonstrated the necessit$ for constructing a road from :.4.
;antos ;treet to ;to. #omas =u*id. #he witnesses who were residents of ;to. #omas
=u*id testified that although there were other wa$s through which one can enter the
-icinit$ no -ehicle howe-er especiall$ fire truc*s could enter the area e,cept through
the newl$ constructed Aama$an ;treet. #his is more than sufficient to esta!lish that
there is a genuine necessit$ for the construction of a road in the area. .fter all a!solute
necessit$ is not required onl$ reasona!le and practical necessit$ will suffice.
Nonetheless the respondent failed to show the necessit$ for constructing the road
particularl$ in the petitioner/s propert$ and not elsewhere. 8e note that the wheras
clause of the ordinance states that the &'3square meter lot is the shortest and most
suita!le access road to connect ;to. #omas =u*id to :.4. ;antos ;treet. #he
respondent/s complaint also alleged that the said portion of the petitioner/s lot has !een
sur-e$ed as the !est possi!le ingress and egress. Howe-er the respondent failed to
adduce a preponderance of e-idence.
''6
+%ap v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 11811!, 2e%ember 7, 1995, 251 S,R+ 30
;ad$a, (.

*+,-S. #he title to Lot ''5% of the Cadastral ;ur-e$ of Hinigaran Negros 7ccidental
was e-idenced !$ 7C# 43'2'76. #he lot has an area of '572% sq. m. #he title was
issued and is registered in the name of spouses ;antiago 1asquez and Lorenza
7ruma. .fter !oth spouses died their onl$ son Beli,!erto inherited the lot. )n '67&
Beli,!erto e,ecuted a dul$ notarized document entitled IAeclaration of Heirship and
Aeed of .!solute ;aleJ in fa-or of Cosme Pido. ;ince '6+% #eodoro .cap had !een
the tenant of a portion of the said land co-ering an area of 6&%% sq. m. 8hen
ownership was transferred in '67& !$ Beli,!erto to Cosme Pido .cap continued to !e
the registered tenant thereof and religiousl$ paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and
thereafter upon Pido/s death to his widow Laurenciana. #he contro-ers$ !egan when
Pido died interstate and on 27 No-em!er '68' his sur-i-ing heirs e,ecuted a notarized
document denominated as IAeclaration of Heirship and 8ai-er of 4ights of Lot ''5%
Hinigaran CadastreJ wherein the$ declared to ha-e ad"udicated upon themsel-es the
parcel of land in equal share and that the$ wai-e quitclaim all right interests and
participation o-er the parcel of land in fa-or of :d$ de los 4e$es. #he document was
signed !$ all of Pido/s heirs. :d$ de los 4e$es did not sign said document. )t will !e
noted that at the time of Cosme Pido/s death title to the propert$ continued to !e
registered in the name of the 1asquez spouses. Cpon o!taining the Aeclaration of
Heirship with 8ai-er of 4ights in his fa-or de los 4e$es filed the same with the 4egistr$
of Aeeds as part of a notice of an ad-erse claim against the original certificate of title.
#hereafter delos 4e$es sought for .cap to personall$ inform him that he had !ecome
the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should !e paid to him.
Aelos 4e$es alleged that he and .cap entered into an oral lease agreement wherein
.cap agreed to pa$ '% ca-ans of pala$ per annum as lease rental. )n '682 .cap
allegedl$ complied with said o!ligation. )n '685 howe-er .cap refused to pa$ an$
further lease rentals on the land prompting delos 4e$es to see* the assistance of the
then 0inistr$ of .grarian 4eform ?0.4@ in Hinigaran Negros 7ccidental. #he 0.4
in-ited .cap who sent his wife to a conference scheduled on '5 7cto!er '685. #he
wife stated that the she and her hus!and did not recognize delos 4e$es/s claim of
ownership o-er the land. 7n 28 .pril '688 after the lapse of four ?D@ $ears delos 4e$es
filed a complaint for reco-er$ of possession and damages against .cap alleging that as
his leasehold tenant .cap refused and failed to pa$ the agreed annual rental of '%
ca-ans of pala$ despite repeated demands. 7n 2% .ugust '66'.
/SS01. 8hether or not the su!"ect declaration of heirship and wai-er of rights is a
recognized mode of acquiring ownership !$ pri-ate respondent o-er the lot in question.
H1L2. .n asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right o-er a thing arising from a
"uridical act howe-er "ustified is not per se sufficient to gi-e rise to ownership o-er the
res. #hat right or title must !e completed !$ fulfilling certain conditions imposed !$ law.
Hence ownership and real rights are acquired onl$ pursuant to a legal mode or
'2%
process. 8hile title is the "uridical "ustification mode is the actual process of acquisition
or transfer of ownership o-er a thing in question.
Cnder .rticle 7'2 of the Ci-il Code the modes of acquiring ownership are generall$
classified into two ?2@ classes namel$ the ori$inal mode ?i.e. through occupation
acquisiti-e prescription law or intellectual creation@ and the derivative mode ?i.e.
through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts such as
sale !arter donation assignment or mutuum@.
)n the case at !ench the trial court was o!-iousl$ confused as to the nature and effect
of the Aeclaration of Heirship and 8ai-er of 4ights equating the same with a contract
?deed@ of sale. #he$ are not the same. )n a Contract of ;ale one of the contracting
parties o!ligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deli-er a determinate thing
and the other part$ to pa$ a price certain in mone$ or its equi-alent.

Cpon the other
hand a declaration of heirship and wai-er of rights operates as a pu!lic instrument
when filed with the 4egistr$ of Aeeds where!$ the intestate heirs ad"udicate and di-ide
the estate left !$ the decedent among themsel-es as the$ see fit. )t is in effect an
e,tra"udicial settlement !etween the heirs under 4ule 7D of the 4ules of Court.
Hence there is a mar*ed difference !etween a sale of hereditar$ rights and a waiver of
hereditar$ rights. #he first presumes the e,istence of a contract or deed of sale !etween
the parties. #he second is technicall$ spea*ing a mode of e,tinction of ownership
where there is an a!dication or intentional relinquishment of a *nown right with
*nowledge of its e,istence and intention to relinquish it in favor of other persons who
are co0heirs in the succession.

Pri-ate respondent !eing then a stranger to the
succession of Cosme Pido cannot conclusi-el$ claim ownership o-er the su!"ect lot on
the sole !asis of the wai-er document which neither recites the elements of either a
sale

or a donation or an$ other deri-ati-e mode of acquiring ownership.
2e L54a v. +br$go
G.R. No. L-57!55, (a45ar' 18, 1990, 181 S,R+ 150
3ed$adea, (.
*+,-S. Prudencio de Luna donated a portion of a lot of the Cadastral ;ur-e$ of
Lucena to the Luzonian Cni-ersit$ Boundation. #he donation was em!odied in a Aeed
of Aonation )nter-i-os and made su!"ect to certain terms and conditions and pro-ided
for the automatic re-ersion to the donor of the donated propert$ in case of -iolation or
non3compliance. #he foundation failed to compl$ with the conditions of the donation. Ae
Luna Fre-i-edF the said donation in fa-or of the foundation in a document entitled
F4e-i-al of Aonation )nter-i-osF su!"ect to terms and conditions which among others
required it to construct a chapel a nurser$ and a *indergarten school in the donated
propert$ within fi-e ?&@ $ears from e,ecution. #he automatic re-ersion to the donor of
the donated area in case of -iolation of the conditions was also pro-ided. #he
foundation through its president accepted the donation. . FAeed of ;egregationF was
'2'
later e,ecuted !$ Ae Luna and the foundation where!$ the area donated was
ad"udicated to the foundation. #he heirs of de Luna later filed a complaint with the trial
court alleging that the terms and conditions of the donation were not complied with !$
the foundation. #hus it pra$ed for the cancellation of the donation and the re-ersion of
the donated land to the heirs. #he foundation in-o*ed among others the defense of
prescription of action. #he court dismissed the complaint. )t ruled that under .rticle 7+D
of the New Ci-il Code actions to re-o*e a donation on the ground of non3compliance
with an$ of the conditions of the donation shall prescri!e in four $ears ?D@ counted from
such non3compliance. )n the instant case the four3$ear period for filing the complaint for
re-ocation commenced on .pril 6 '67+ and e,pired on .pril 6 '68%. ;ince the
complaint was !rought on ;eptem!er 25 '68% or more than fi-e ?&@ months !e$ond the
prescripti-e period it was alread$ !arred !$ prescription.
/SS01. 8hether or not the complaint is one for "udicial decree of re-ocation of the
donation in question as contemplated in .rticle 7+D of the New Ci-il Code and which
prescri!es in four ?D@ $ears and not an action to enforce a written contract which
prescri!es in ten ?'%@ $ears.
H1L2. #he donation su!"ect of this case is one with an onerous cause. )t was made
su!"ect to the !urden requiring the donee to construct a chapel a nurser$ and a
*indergarten school in the donated propert$ within fi-e $ears from e,ecution of the deed
of donation. )t is true that under .rticle 7+D actions for the re-ocation of a donation
must !e !rought within for ?D@ $ears from the non3compliance of the conditions of the
donation. Howe-er the said article does not appl$ to onerous donations in -iew of the
specific pro-ision of .rticle 755 pro-iding that onerous donations are go-erned !$ the
rules on contracts. #herefore the rules on contracts and the general rules on
prescription and not the rules on donations are applica!le in the case at !ar.
Burthermore while the "udicial action for the rescission of a contract is generall$ not
necessar$ where the contract pro-ides that it ma$ !e automaticall$ re-o*ed and
cancelled for -iolation of an$ of its terms and conditions howe-er where one of the
parties contests or denies the rescission "udicial inter-ention is necessar$ not for
purposes of o!taining a "udicial declaration rescinding a contract alread$ deemed
rescinded !$ -irtue of an agreement pro-iding for rescission e-en without "udicial
inter-ention !ut in order to determine whether or not the rescission was proper. 2udicial
action will !e necessar$ as without it the e,tra"udicial resolution will remain contesta!le
and su!"ect to "udicial in-alidation unless attac* thereon should !ecome !arred !$
acquiescence estoppel or prescription.
)n the instant case trial court was therefore not correct in holding that the complaint is
!arred !$ prescription under .rticle 7+D !ecause .rticle 7+D does not appl$ to onerous
donations. .s pro-ided in the donation e,ecuted on .pril 6 '67' compliance with the
terms and conditions of the contract of donation shall !e made within fi-e ?&@ $ears
from its e,ecution. #he complaint which was filed on ;eptem!er 25 '68% was then well
within the ten ?'%@ $ear prescripti-e period to enforce a written contract pursuant to
.rticle ''DD par. ' counted from .pril 6 '67+.
'22
Re'es v. 3osD5eda
G.R. No. L-!5272, (5' 23, 1990
G5t$erre&, (r., (.
*+,-S. 7n 0a$ '& '6+6 Ar. :milio Pascual e,ecuted a Aeed of Aonation of real
propert$ located at ''%63'''' 4. Papa ;t. #ondo 0anila in fa-or of 7felia Parungao a
minor with her mother 4osario Auncil accepting the gift and donation for and in her
!ehalf. Howe-er Crsula Pascual alleged that Ar. Pascual during his lifetime on
No-em!er 2 '6++ e,ecuted a Aonation mortis causa in her fa-or co-ering the said
propert$. Parungao upon reaching the age of ma"orit$ was a!le to register the Aeed of
Aonation with the 4egister of Aeeds in 0anila and was issued a #C#.
7n ;eptem!er 25 '67+ Crsula e,ecuted a deed of a!solute sale o-er the #ondo
propert$ in fa-or of =en"amin 7scar 2ose and :mmanuel 4e$es. =en"amin filed a
complaint for the declaration of nullit$ of the #C# of Parungao andHor recon-e$ance of
the deed of title. #he CB) of 0anila declared the #C# in the name of Parungao null and
-oid and ordered the 4egister of Aeeds to cancel the title. 7n appeal the Court of
.ppeals ruled that the '6++ donation to Crsula was inter -i-os which meant that the
propert$ was alread$ transferred to Crsula at that time.
/SS01. 8hether or not the donation to Crsula was )nter 1i-os or 0ortis Causa.
H1L2. )t was a Aonation )nter 1i-os. #he title gi-en !$ the donor in the deed of
donation is not a determinati-e factor which ma*es the donation inter -i-os or mortis
causa. )t is the !od$ of the document of donation and the statements contained therein
and not the title that should !e considered in ascertaining the intent of the donor. )n the
case the donor used the term donation 0ortis Causa !ut from the stipulations of the
deed it can !e clearl$ inferred that he was actuall$ e,ecuting a donation )nter 1i-os to
Crsula.
#he transfer of ownership o-er the properties donated to Crsula was immediate and
independent of the death of Ar. Pascual since it was a donation )nter 1i-os. #he
pro-ision as regards the reser-ation of properties for the donorEs su!sistence in relation
to the other pro-isions of the deed of donation confirms the intention of the donor to gi-e
the na*ed ownership of the properties to Crsula immediatel$ after the e,ecution of the
deed of donation. Hence he could not ha-e donated the propert$ again in '6+6 in fa-or
of Parungao since the lot was alread$ transferred to Crsula at that time.
L$g5e& v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-112!0, 2e%ember 18, 1957, 102 ;6$. 577
Re'es, (.).L., (.
'25
*+,-S. #he case !egan upon complaint filed !$ petitioner3appellant against the widow
and heirs of the late ;al-ador P. Lopez to reco-er a parcel of land in !arrio Aa-ao.
Plaintiff a-erred to !e its legal owner pursuant to a deed of donation of said land
e,ecuted in her fa-or !$ the late owner ;al-ador P. Lopez on '8 0a$ '6D5. #he
defense interposed was that the donation was null and -oid for ha-ing an illicit causa or
consideration which was the plaintiffEs entering into marital relations with ;al-ador P.
Lopez a married man> and that the propert$ had !een ad"udicated to the appellees as
heirs of Lopez !$ the court of Birst )nstance since '6D6.
)t was ascertained !$ the Court of .ppeals that the donated land originall$ !elonged to
the con"ugal partnership of ;al-ador P. Lopez and his wife 0aria Ngo> that the latter
had met and !erated Conchita for li-ing maritall$ with her hus!and sometime during
2une of '6D5> that the widow and children of Lopez were in possession of the land and
made impro-ements thereon> that the land was assessed in the ta, rolls first in the
name of Lopez and later in that of his widow.> and that the deed of donation was ne-er
recorded.
Cpon these facts the Court of .ppeals held that the deed of donation was inoperati-e
and null and -oid ?'@ !ecause the hus!and Lopez had no right to donate con"ugal
propert$ to the plaintiff appellant> and ?2@ !ecause the donation was tainted with illegal
cause or consideration of which donor and donee were participants.
/SS01. 8hether or not the donation is -alid.
H1L2. )n the present case it is scarcel$ disputa!le that Lopez would not ha-e
con-e$ed the propert$ in question had he *nown that appellant would refuse to coha!it
with him. #he coha!itation was an implied condition to the donation and !eing unlawful
necessaril$ tainted the donation itself.
#he rule that parties to an illegal contract if equall$ guilt$ will not !e aided !$ the law
!ut will !oth !e left where it finds them has !een interpreted !$ this Court as !arring the
part$ from pleading the illegalit$ of the !argain either as a cause of action or as a
defense. #emo auditor propriam turpitudinem alle$ans.
#he appellant see*s reco-er$ of the disputed land on the strength of a donation regular
on its face. #o defeat its effect the appellees must plead and pro-e that the same is
illegal. =ut such plea on the part of the Lopez heirs is not recei-a!le since Lopez
himself if li-ing would !e !arred from setting up that plea> and his heirs as his pri-ies
and successors in interest can ha-e no !etter rights than Lopez himself.
.ppellees as successors of the late donor !eing thus precluded from pleading the
defense of immoralit$ or illegal causa of the donation the total or partial ineffecti-eness
of the same must !e decided !$ different legal principles. )n this regard the Court of
.ppeals correctl$ held that Lopez could not donate the entiret$ of the propert$ in
litigation to the pre"udice of his wife 0aria Ngo !ecause said propert$ was con"ugal in
'2D
character and the right of the hus!and to donate communit$ propert$ is strictl$ limited
!$ law
;ers6$4g -a4 <5eto v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-357!8, 3ar%6 27, 1987, 1!8 S,R+ 5!
;aras, (.
*+,-S. Herein pri-ate respondent 4estituta #acalinar Guangco de Pom!uena recei-ed
the questioned lot from her mother =asilides #acalinar either as a purported donation or
!$ wa$ of purchase with P&% as the alleged consideration thereof. #he donation or sale
was consummated while 4estituta was alread$ married to her hus!and 2uan
Pom!uena. 2uan then filed for himself and his supposed co3owner 4esitituta an
application for a #orrens #itle o-er the land which was later on granted pronouncing him
?Rmarried to 4esitiuta/@ as the owner of the land.
. contract of lease o-er the lot was entered into !etween petitioner Pershing #an
Mueto and 4estituta with the consent of her hus!and for a period of '% $ears. #he lease
of contract ha-ing e,pired 4estituta filed for unlawful detainer against #an Mueto. #he
unlawful detainer case was won !$ the spouses in the 0unicipal Court !ut on appeal in
the CB) the entire case was dismissed !ecause of a !arter agreement where!$ #an
Mueto !ecame the owner of the disputed lot and the spouses !ecame the owners of a
parcel of land with the house thereon pre-iousl$ owned !efore the !arter !$ #an Mueto.
.fter the !arter agreement #an Mueto constructed on the disputed land a concrete
!uilding without an$ o!"ection from 4estituta. .fterwards 4estituta sued !oth 2uan and
#an Mueto for recon-e$ance of the title o-er the registered !ut disputed lot for
annulment of the !arter and for reco-er$ of the land with damages.
#he respondent court/s decision which later on was affirmed !$ the ;upreme court led
to the reformation of the Contract of ;ale of the disputed lot from =asilides to 4estituta
from a sale to a con-e$ance of the share of 4estituta in the future hereditar$ estate of
her parents. Hence this petition for a motion for reconsideration.
/SS01. 8hether or not the con-e$ance of the share of 4estituta in the future hereditar$
estate of her parents was -alid hence a paraphernal propert$.
H1L2. No. #he court ruled that the land is con"ugal not paraphernal. #he oral donation
of the lot cannot !e a -alid donation inter-i-os !ecause it was not e,ecuted in a pu!lic
instrument ?.rt. 7D6 Ci-il Code@ nor as a -alid donation mortis causa for the formalities
of a will were not complied with. #he allegation that the transfer was a con-e$ance to
4:;#)#C#. of her hereditar$ share in the estate of her mother ?or parents@ cannot !e
sustained for the contractual transmission of future inheritance is generall$ prohi!ited.
#he fact is ownership was acquired !$ !oth 2C.N and 4:;#)#C#. !$ tradition
?deli-er$@ as a consequence of the contract of sale ?;ee .rt. 7'2 Ci-il Code@ with
'2&
P&%.%% ?then a considera!le amount@ as the cause or consideration of the transaction.
#he lot is therefore con"ugal ha-ing !een acquired !$ the spouses thru onerous title
?the mone$ used !eing presuma!l$ con"ugal there !eing no proof that 4:;#)#C#. had
paraphernal funds of her own@.
;a@ar$o vs. /4termed$ate +ppeate ,o5rt
G.R. No. 72908, +5g5st 11, 1989, 177 S,R+ 3!0
,r5&, (.
*+,-S. Perfecta =alane de Cordero died intestate in '6D& and lea-ing a tract of 28
hectares of land with !uildings and impro-ements in the Muezon Pro-ince. 7n 0a$ 2%
'6D+ perfecta/s si!lings 2uana and Belipe e,ecuted a pu!lic instrument entitled I :,tra3
"udicial settlement of the estate of the decease Perfecta =alane de Cordero.J )n it the$
disposed that in according to Perfecta/s wishes and in consideration of lo-e and
affection the said propert$ !e donated to pri-ate respondent ;alud ;uterio de 0atias
Perfecta/s niece who will assume the encum!ranceHo!ligation to the Philippine National
=an* in the amount of P '%%%. )n the same document the done accepted the donation
in a pu!lic instrument. #he instrument was ne-er registered nor the title transferred to
;alud/s name although she immediatel$ too* possession of the land. ;ometime in '6&'
;alud transferred the possession of the land to her mother 2uana who was then sta$ing
with her !rother Claudio and his famil$. Auring the period the$ were occup$ing the land
Claudio paid realt$ ta,es thereon. 7n 0a$ 2& '6&+ 2uana e,ecuted a deed of a!solute
sale con-e$ing the land to Claudio. #wo $ears later Claudio had the land registered in
his name. Claudio died in '6+' and his mother in '6+5. 7n 2une 5% '6+& the pri-ate
respondents ;alud and Pedro 0atias filed a complaint for the recon-e$ance of the
propert$ on the ground that the deed of sale in fa-our of Claudio was fictitious and the
registration in his name was null and -oid. ;alud claimed that no compensation was
paid !$ Claudio and that the transaction was deli!eratel$ concealed from her !$ her
!rother and the defendants.
/SS01. 8hether or not the e,tra3"udicial settlement was a donation.
H1L2. 9es. Belipe and 2uana had declared themsel-es the heirs of Perfecta and the
owners of the propert$ in question. .s such the$ were free to gi-e the land to
whome-er the$ pleased and for whate-er reason the$ saw fit. Hence if the$ choose to
respect Perfecta/s wishes and carr$ out her intentions !$ donating the land to ;alud
there was no legal impediment to their doing so. #here is no question that Belipe and
2uana could ha-e simpl$ disregarded their sister/s sentiments and decided not to
donate the propert$ to ;alud. #he fact that the$ did no do this spea*s well of their
integrit$ and their lo$alt$ to their deceased sister. #he e,tra3"udicial settlement also
reflects their own affection for ;alud which constituted the -alid consideration for their
own act of li!eralit$.
'2+
,r5& v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. L-58771, November 22, 1985, 1!0 S,R+ 2!5
;a4a, (.
*+,-S. )n '675 :du-igis Cruz a childless widow donated a 25&.& sq. m. residential
lot in ;an )sidro #a$ta$ 4izal together with the two3door apartment erected thereon to
her grandnieces ?pri-ate respondents #eresita L$dia and Cecilia all surnamed Ae
Leon@. #he propert$ was accordingl$ transferred to the names of pri-ate respondents.
)n '67D Cruz "udiciall$ adopted Cresencia 7creto a minor after which she
e,tra"udicaill$ tried to re-o*e the donation !ut the donee resisted alleging that< ?'@ the
propert$ in question was co3owned !$ :du-igis Cruz and her !rother the late 0a,imo
Cruz grandfather of the donees hence the latter own 'H2 of the propert$ !$ inheritance>
and ?2@ :du-igis owns another propert$ an agricultural land of more than two hectares
situated in =arrio Aolores #a$ta$ 4izal hence the donation did not impair the
presumpti-e legitime of the adopti-e child.
Petitioner filed a complaint against the donees for re-ocation of donation in-o*ing
.rticle 7+% par. 5 of the NCC. #he trial court rendered a decision re-o*ing the donation.
7n appal #he Court of .ppeals re-ersed the trial court and dismissed the complaint.
/SS01. 8hether or not the Court of .ppeals correctl$ dismissed the complaint to annul
the su!"ect donation.
H1L2. 9es. )n the case of the su!sequent adoption of a minor !$ one who had
pre-iousl$ donated some or all of his properties to another the donor ma$ sue for the
annulment or reduction of the donation within D $ears from the date of adoption if the
donation impairs the legitime of the adopted ta*ing into account the whole estate of the
donor at the time of the donation of the child ?.rticles 7+% 7+' and 7+5 of the NCC@. 7f
course the !urden of proof is on the plaintiff3donor who must allege and esta!lish the
requirements prescri!ed !$ law on the !asis of which annulment or reduction of the
donation can !e ad"udged. Cnfortunatel$ in the case at !ar the complaint for
annulment does not allege that the su!"ect donation impairs the legitime of the adopted
child. )ndeed it contains no indication at all of the total assets of the donor.
Nor is there proof of impairment of legitime. 7n the contrar$ there is unre!utted
e-idence that the donor has another piece of land worth P275D2% in '677. #he legal
situation of petitioner3donor is made worse !$ the factual finding of the Court of .ppeals
that the grandfather of the donees was the owner pro indi-iso of one3half of the donated
land the effect of which is to reduce the -alue of the donation which can then more
easil$ !e ta*en from the portion of the estate within the free disposal of petitioner.
Roma4 ,at6o$% +r%6b$s6op o# 3a4$a v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
'27
G.R. No. 77!25, (54e 19, 1991, 198 S,R+ 300
Regaado, (.
*+,-S. 7n .ugust 25 '65% the spouses :use!io de Castro and 0artina 4ieta
e,ecuted a deed of donation in fa-or of herein petitioner 4oman Catholic .rch!ishop of
0anila co-ering a parcel of land located at Ca-ite. #he deed of donation pro-ides that
the donee shall not dispose or sell the propert$ within a period of '%% $ears from the
e,ecution of the deed of donation otherwise a -iolation of such condition would render
ipso facto null and -oid the donation and the propert$ would re-ert to the estate of the
donors.
Howe-er on 2une 5% '68% while within the prohi!iti-e period to dispose petitioner
e,ecuted a deed of a!solute sale of the propert$ su!"ect of the donation in fa-or of the
petitioner3spouses Blorencio and ;oledad )gnao in consideration of the sum of
P''D%%%.%%. Hence pri-ate respondents filed a complaint for the nullification of the
deed of donation. )n their answer the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss !ased on the
grounds that the action has !een !arred !$ prescription !ecause the complaint was filed
four $ears after the sale and that the complaint states no cause of action.
/SS01. 8hether or not the deed of donation in fa-or of the 4oman Catholic .rch!ishop
of 0anila ma$ !e re-o*ed.
H1L2. No. #he complaint in the case at !ar cannot !e !arred !$ prescription !ecause
the applica!le prescripti-e period is not the D3$ear period pro-ided in .rticle 7+D of the
New Ci-il Code rather it is the '%3$ear period ordinar$ prescription shall appl$ !ecause
the deed of donation pro-ides for the automatic re-ersion of the propert$ to the original
owner in case of -iolation of an$ condition. #he Court in the pre-ious case of Ae Luna
-. .!rigo has alread$ settled such prescripti-e period.
Howe-er although the action cannot !e dismissed on the ground of prescription the
same should !e dismissed for lac* of cause of action.
#he cause of action of the pri-ate respondents is !ased on the fact that the petitioner
sold the lot during the &%
th
$ear of the prohi!iti-e period of '%% $ears. ;uch prohi!iti-e
period imposed !$ the respondents was unreasona!le !ecause appl$ing in analog$
.rticles D6D and 87% of the New Ci-il Code the donor cannot order a prohi!iti-e period
of disposition e,ceeding 2% $ears. .s such the said condition regarding the prohi!iti-e
period !eing contrar$ to law shall !e considered as null and -oid pursuant to .rt. 727 of
the New Ci-il Code !ut the donation shall remain -alid and su!sisting. #hus
respondents cannot an$more re-o*e the donation and the sale of the propert$ !$ the
petitioner to the )gnao spouses shall !e -alid and with legal effects.
1d5arte v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 1059!!, *ebr5ar' 9, 1997, 253 S,R+ 391
'28
*ra4%$s%o, (.
*+,-S. Pedro Calapine was the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of
'2'66 square meters. He e,ecuted a deed entitled IAonation )nter1i-osJ ceding one3
half portion thereof to his niece Helen ;. Aoria. :-entuall$ the whole parcel of land was
ceded to Aoria !$ Calapine. Aoria then donated a portion of '&7 square meters to the
Calauan Christian 4eformed Church. He also sold transferred and con-e$ed unto the
spouses :duarte the parcel of land sa-ing the 7%% square meters on which Aoria/s
house was erected. Howe-er Pedro Calapine filed a complaint against Aoria the
Calauan Christian 4eformed Church )nc. and the spouses :duarte claiming that his
signature to the deed of donation was a forger$. He pra$s for the re-ocation of the
donation made in fa-our of Aoria to declare null and -oid the deeds of donation and
sale that she had e,ecuted in fa-or of the Calauan Christian 4eformed Church )nc. and
the spouses :duarte.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioners are !u$ers in !ad faith of the donated propert$.
H1L2. No. #he rule is well3settled that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a
holder of a registered torrens title to real propert$. 8hen herein petitioners purchased
the su!"ect propert$ from Helen Aoria the same was alread$ co-ered !$ #C# No. #3
252%& under the latterEs name. .nd although Helen AoriaEs title was fraudulentl$
secured such fact cannot pre"udice the rights of herein petitioners a!sent an$ showing
that the$ had an$ *nowledge or participation in such irregularit$. #hus the$ cannot !e
o!liged to loo* !e$ond the certificate of title which appeared to !e -alid on its fade and
sans an$ annotation or notice of pri-ate respondentsE ad-erse claim. Contrar$ therefore
to the conclusion of respondent Court petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for
-alue as the$ !ought the disputed propert$ without notice that some other person has a
right or interest in such propert$ and paid a full price for the same at the time of the
purchase or !efore the$ had notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
propert$. .nd ha-ing esta!lished !e$ond dou!t that Helen Aoria fraudulentl$ secured
her title o-er the disputed propert$ which she su!sequentl$ sold to petitioners Helen
Aoria should instead !e ad"udged lia!le to pri-ate respondents and not to petitioners as
declared !$ the trial court and respondent Court of .ppeals for the resulting damages
to the true owner and original plaintiff Pedro Calapine.
Petition granted.
<5$aa v. +%a4tara
G.R. No. 132781, 2e%ember 3, 2001, 371 S,R+ 311
>4ares B Sa4t$ago, (.
*+,-S. 7n Be!ruar$ 2% '68' Catalina Muilala e,ecuted a FAonation of 4eal Propert$
)nter 1i-osF in fa-or of 1ioleta Muilala o-er a parcel of land. #he FAonation of 4eal
Propert$ )nter 1i-osF consists of two pages. #he first page contains the deed of
donation itself and is signed on the !ottom portion !$ Catalina Muilala as donor 1ioleta
'26
Muilala as donee and two instrumental witnesses. #he second page contains the
.c*nowledgment which states merel$ that Catalina Muilala personall$ appeared !efore
the notar$ pu!lic and ac*nowledged that the donation was her free and -oluntar$ act
and deed. #here appear on the left3hand margin of the second page the signatures of
Catalina Muilala and one of the witnesses and on the right3hand margin the signatures
of 1ioleta Muilala and the other witness #he deed of donation was registered with the
4egister of Aeeds and in due course #C# No. '72'D was cancelled and #C# No.
'D5%'& was issued in the name of 1ioleta Muilala.
7n No-em!er 7 '685 Catalina Muilala died. 1ioleta Muilala li*ewise died on 0a$ 22
'68D. Petitioner 4ic*$ Muilala alleges that he is the sur-i-ing son of 1ioleta Muilala.
0eanwhile respondents Gliceria .lcantara Leonora .lcantara )nes 4e$es and 2uan
4e$es claiming to !e CatalinaEs onl$ sur-i-ing relati-es within the fourth ci-il degree of
consanguinit$ e,ecuted a deed of e,tra"udicial settlement of estate di-iding and
ad"udicating unto themsel-es the a!o-e3descri!ed propert$.
7n ;eptem!er '5 '68D respondents instituted against petitioner and Guillermo #. ;an
Pedro the 4egistrar of Aeeds of 0anila an action for the declaration of nullit$ of the
donation inter -i-os. #he trial court found that the deed of donation although signed !$
!oth Catalina and 1ioleta was ac*nowledged !efore a notar$ pu!lic onl$ !$ the donor
Catalina. Consequentl$ there was no acceptance !$ 1ioleta of the donation in a pu!lic
instrument thus rendering the donation null and -oid. 7n appeal the Court of .ppeals
rendered a decision affirming with modification the decision of the trial court !$
dismissing the complaint for lac* of cause of action without pre"udice to the filing of
pro!ate proceedings of CatalinaEs alleged last will and testament.
/SS01. 8hether or not the deed of donation is -oid for lac* of acceptance on the part of
the donee 1ioleta Muilala.
H1L2. No. .s stated a!o-e the second page of the deed of donation on which the
.c*nowledgment appears was signed !$ the donor and one witness on the left3hand
margin and !$ the donee and the other witness on the right hand margin. ;urel$ the
requirement that the contracting parties and their witnesses should sign on the left3hand
margin of the instrument is not a!solute. #he intendment of the law merel$ is to ensure
that each and e-er$ page of the instrument is authenticated !$ the parties. #he
requirement is designed to a-oid the falsification of the contract after the same has
alread$ !een dul$ e,ecuted !$ the parties. Hence a contracting part$ affi,es his
signature on each page of the instrument to certif$ that he is agreeing to e-er$thing that
is written thereon at the time of signing.
;impl$ put the specification of the location of the signature is merel$ director$. #he fact
that one of the parties signs on the wrong side of the page does not in-alidate the
document. #he purpose of authenticating the page is ser-ed and the requirement in the
a!o-e3quoted pro-ision is deemed su!stantiall$ complied with.
'5%
)n the same -ein the lac* of an ac*nowledgment !$ the donee !efore the notar$ pu!lic
does not also render the donation null and -oid. #he instrument should !e treated in its
entiret$. )t cannot !e considered a pri-ate document in part and a pu!lic document in
another part. #he fact that it was ac*nowledged !efore a notar$ pu!lic con-erts the
deed of donation in its entiret$ a pu!lic instrument. #he fact that the donee was not
mentioned !$ the notar$ pu!lic in the ac*nowledgment is of no moment. #o !e sure it is
the con-e$ance that should !e ac*nowledged as a free and -oluntar$ act. )n an$ e-ent
the donee signed on the second page which contains the .c*nowledgment onl$. Her
acceptance which is e,plicitl$ set forth on the first page of the notarized deed of
donation was made in a pu!lic instrument.
Hemedes v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 107132, "%tober 8, 1999, 317 S,R+ 3!7
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. 2ose Hemedes father of 0a,ima Hemedes and :nrique A. Hemedes. 2ose
Hemedes e,ecuted a document entitled FAonation )nter 1i-os 8ith 4esolutor$
ConditionsF where!$ he con-e$ed ownership o-er the su!"ect land together with all its
impro-ements in fa-or of his third wife 2usta Sausapin su!"ect to the following
resolutor$ conditions that upon her death or marriage the A7N:: shall re-ert the said
propert$ to an$one of 2ose Hemedes children.
7n ;eptem!er 27 '6+% a FAeed of Con-e$ance of Cnregistered 4eal Propert$ !$
4e-ersionF con-e$ing to 0a,ima Hemedes. ;he had it titled and mortgage it to 4 K =
)nsurance with an annotation of C;CB4CC# fa-or of her stepmother2usta Sausapin.
Cna!le to pa$ the mortgage 4 K = )nsurance e,tra3"udiciall$ foreclosed the propert$.
Howe-er 2usta Sausapin e,ecuted another agreement or Sasunduan on 0a$ 27 '67'
to his stepson :nrique A. Hemedes. He o!tained ta, declarations and pa$ realt$ ta,es
from thereon. #he 0inistr$ of .grarian 4eform 7ffice conducted a cadastral sur-e$ and
indicated :nrique Hemedes as the owner.
:nrique Hemedes sold the propert$ to Aominium 4ealt$ Const. Corp.?Aominium@ a
sister compan$ of .sia =rewer$. .sia =rewer$ started to introduce some impro-ements
alread$ when 4 K = insurance informed them that the$ are the owners of the propert$
where these impro-ements are !eing !uilt.
/SS01. 8hether or not the *asunduan e,ecuted !$ 2usta Sausapin in fa-or of :nrique
A. Hemedes -alid.
H1L2. #he court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the C.. )t held that
0a,ima failed to compl$ with the requirements of .rt. '552 of the ci-il code and also
failed to repudiate 2usta Sausapin/s allegation that she did not e,ecute such a deed and
she ne-er allowed to use the land as securit$ for the loan. )t was found that the deed of
con-e$ance to 0a,ima was spurious and it follows that the original title she had for the
'5'
propert$ was also null and -oid so as the mortgage to 4 K = )nsurance. 7n the other
hand Sausapin e,ecuted an affida-it to affirm the authenticit$ of the *asundudan in
fa-or of his stepson :nrique Hemedes whom she is dependent from for her financial
support.
S$g5a4 v. L$m
G.R. No. 13!785, November 19, 1999, 318 S,R+ 725
2av$de, (r., ,.(.
*+,-S. 7n 2 2ul$ '66' a Aeed of Aonation con-e$ing parcels of land and purportedl$
e,ecuted !$ L)0 on '% .ugust '686 in fa-or of her children Linde )ngrid and Neil was
registered with the 7ffice of the 4egister of Aeeds of Ce!u Cit$. 7n 25 2une '665
petitioner filed an accion pauliana against L)0 and her children to rescind the
questioned Aeed of Aonation and to declare as null and -oid the new transfer
certificates of title issued for the lots co-ered !$ the questioned Aeed. Petitioner
claimed therein that sometime in 2ul$ '66' L)0 through a Aeed of Aonation
fraudulentl$ transferred all her real propert$ to her children in !ad faith and in fraud of
creditors including her> that L)0 conspired and confederated with her children in
antedating the questioned Aeed of Aonation to petitionerEs and other creditorsE
pre"udice> and that L)0 at the time of the fraudulent con-e$ance left no sufficient
properties to pa$ her o!ligations. #he 4#C ruled in fa-or of ;iguan and rescinded the
Contract !ut was re-ersed !$ the C..
/SS01. 8hether or not the Aeed of Aonation e,ecuted !$ respondent ma$ !e
rescinded for !eing in fraud of her alleged creditor.
H1L2. 8e resol-e these issues in the negati-e. .rt. '58' of the Ci-il Code enumerates
the contracts which are rescissi!le and among them are Fthose contracts underta*en in
fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in an$ other manner collect the claims due
them.F
#he action to rescind contracts in fraud of creditors is *nown as accion pauliana. Bor
this action to prosper the following requisites must !e present< ?'@ the plaintiff as*ing for
rescission has a credit prior to the alienation although demanda!le later> ?2@ the de!tor
has made a su!sequent contract con-e$ing a patrimonial !enefit to a third person> ?5@
the creditor has no other legal remed$ to satisf$ his claim> ?D@ the act !eing impugned is
fraudulent> ?&@ the third person who recei-ed the propert$ con-e$ed if it is !$ onerous
title has !een an accomplice in the fraud. #he general rule is that rescission requires
the e,istence of creditors at the time of the alleged fraudulent alienation and this must
!e pro-ed as one of the !ases of the "udicial pronouncement setting aside the contract.
8ithout an$ prior e,isting de!t there can neither !e in"ur$ nor fraud. 8hile it is
necessar$ that the credit of the plaintiff in the accion pauliana must e,ist prior to the
fraudulent alienation the date of the "udgment enforcing it is immaterial. :-en if the
"udgment !e su!sequent to the alienation it is merel$ declarator$ with retroacti-e effect
to the date when the credit was constituted. )n the instant case the alleged de!t of L)0
'52
in fa-or of petitioner was incurred in .ugust '66% while the deed of donation was
purportedl$ e,ecuted on '% .ugust '686. :-en assuming arguendo that petitioner
!ecame a creditor of L)0 prior to the cele!ration of the contract of donation still her
action for rescission would not fare well !ecause the third requisite was not met. Cnder
.rticle '58' of the Ci-il Code contracts entered into in fraud of creditors ma$ !e
rescinded onl$ when the creditors cannot in an$ manner collect the claims due them. )t
is therefore Fessential that the part$ as*ing for rescission pro-e that he has e,hausted
all other legal means to o!tain satisfaction of his claim.
2%
Petitioner neither alleged nor
pro-ed that she did so. 7n this score her action for the rescission of the questioned
deed is not maintaina!le e-en if the fraud charged actuall$ did e,ist.F
No%eda vs. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 119730, September 2, 1999, 313 S,R+ 50!
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. Celestino .r!izo died in '6&+ lea-ing !ehind a parcel of land ha-ing an area of
++&5% square meters. His heirs plaintiff .urora Airecto defendant 4odolfo Noceda
and 0aria .r!izo e,tra"udiciall$ settled the partition of the land with Airecto getting
''D2+ square meters Noceda got '526D square meters and .r!izo got D'8'%
square meters. Plaintiff Airecto donated +2& square meters of her share to defendant
Noceda who is her nephew !eing the son of her deceased sister Howe-er another
e,tra"udicial settlement3partition was e,ecuted. #hree fifths of the said land went to
0aria .r!izo while plaintiff Airecto and defendant Noceda got onl$ one3fifth each.
;ometime in '68' Noceda constructed his house on the land donated to him !$
Airecto. Airecto fenced the portion allotted to her in the e,tra"udicial settlement
e,cluding the donated portion and constructed thereon three huts. =ut in '68& Noceda
remo-ed the fence earlier constructed !$ Airecto occupied the three huts ?5@ and
fenced the entire land of plaintiff Airecto without her consent. Airecto demanded from
Noceda to -acate her land !ut the latter refused. Hence Airecto filed a complaint for
the reco-er$ of possession and ownership and rescissionHannulment of donation
against defendant Noceda
/SS01. 8hether or not the acts of Noceda constitute ingratitude to warrant re-ocation
of the donation.
H1L2. 9es. )t was esta!lished that petitioner Noceda occupied not onl$ the portion
donated to him !$ pri-ate respondent .urora .r!izo3Airecto !ut he also fenced the
whole area of Lot C which !elongs to pri-ate respondent Airecto thus petitionerEs act of
occup$ing the portion pertaining to pri-ate respondent Airecto without the latterEs
*nowledge and consent is an act of usurpation which is an offense against the propert$
of the donor and considered as an act of ingratitude of a donee against the donor. #he
law does not require con-iction of the donee> it is enough that the offense !e pro-ed in
the action for re-ocation.
'55
#he action to re-o*e !$ reason of ingratitude prescri!es within one ?'@ $ear to !e
counted from the time ?a@ the donor had *nowledge of the fact> ?!@ pro-ided that it was
possi!le for him to !ring the action. )t is incum!ent upon petitioner to show proof of the
concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one ?'@ $ear period for !ringing the
action !e considered to ha-e alread$ prescri!ed. No competent proof was adduced !$
petitioner to pro-e his allegation.
He$rs o# ,esar$o VeasD5e& v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 127997, *ebr5ar' 15, 2000, 325 S,R+ 552
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. ;pouses Leoncia de Guzman and Cornelio .quino died intestate sometime in
'6D& and '6D7 respecti-el$ and were childless lea-ing + parcels of land situated in
Pangasinan. Leoncia Ae Guzman was sur-i-ed !$ her sisters .natalia de Guzman and
#ranquilina de Guzman.
;ometime in '686 the 0eneses?heirs of .natalia de Guzman@ filed a complaint for
annulment partition and damages against the heirs of Cesario 1elasquez?son of
#ranquilina de Guzman@ for the lattersE refusal to partition the properties of the ;pouses
.quino.
#he complaint alleged that !efore Leoncia/s death she told that the documents of
donation and partition which she and her hus!and earlier e,ecuted were not signed !$
them as it was not their intention to gi-e awa$ all the properties to Cesario 1elasquez
!ecause .natalia de Guzman who is one of her sisters had se-eral children to support>
and that Cesario 1elasquez and his mother allegedl$ promised to di-ide the properties
equall$ and to gi-e the plaintiffs one3half thereof. Plaintiffs further claim that after the
death of Leoncia defendants forci!l$ too* possession of all the properties and despite
plaintiffsE repeated demands for partition defendants refused.
Plaintiffs pra$ed for the nullit$ of the documents co-ering the properties in question
since the$ do not !ear the genuine signatures of the .quino spouses to order the
partition of the properties !etween plaintiffs and defendants in equal shares and to order
the defendants to render an accounting of the produce of the land from the time
defendants forci!l$ too* possession until partition shall ha-e !een effected.
Aefendants filed their answer with counterclaim alleging that during the lifetime of
spouses .quino the$ had alread$ disposed of their properties in fa-or of petitionersE
predecessors3in3interest Cesario 1elasquez and Camila de Guzman and petitioners
.nastacia and 2ose 1elasquez in the following manner<
?'@ #he third and si,th parcels were con-e$ed to defendantsE late parents
Cesario 1elasquez and Camila de Guzman !$ -irtue of a :scritura de Aonation
Propter Nuptias dated Be!ruar$ '& '6'6>
'5D
?2@ #he second parcel was con-e$ed to defendantsE late parents Cesario
1elasquez and Camila de Guzman !$ -irtue of a deed of con-e$ance dated 2ul$
'D '656>
?5@ #he first parcel was li*ewise con-e$ed to defendants 2ose 1elasquez and
.nastacia 1elasquez !$ -irtue of a deed of con-e$ance ?Aonation )nter-i-os@
dated .pril '% '656>
?D@ .s to the fourth and fifth parcels the same were owned and possessed !$
third parties.
#he trial court ruled in fa-or of the plaintiffs gi-ing credi!ilit$ to ;antiago 0eneses/
testimon$> declaring the Aonation )nter-i-os the Aeed of ;ale the Aeed of Aonation
the Aeed of ;ale to third parties o-er the Dth and &th parcels as null and -oid insofar as
'H2 of the + parcels are concerned legitimatel$ !elong to the plaintiffs> and ordering the
defendants to pa$ damages. Aefendants appealed the decision to respondent C. which
affirmed the same. . motion for reconsideration was filed !$ the petitioners !ut the
same was denied.
/SS01. 8hether or not the petitioners ha-e acquired a!solute and e,clusi-e ownership
of the properties in question.
H1L2. 9es. Pri-ate respondent ;antiago 0eneses failed to pro-e the nullit$ of the
Aeeds of Con-e$ance e,ecuted !$ the .quino spouses in fa-or of petitioners and their
predecessors3in3interest Cesario 1elasquez and Camila de Guzman since he failed to
adduce an$ e-idence to support his claim other than his !are allegations of its nullit$.
7n the other hand petitioners were a!le to show !$ documentar$ e-idence that the
.quino spouses during their lifetime disposed of the four parcels of land su!"ect of the
complaint to wit< ?a@ :scritura de donation propter nuptias ?!@ Aeed of donation inter
-i-os ?c@ :scritura de Compre-enta with a P&%% consideration< ?d@ Aeed of
Con-e$ance with a consideration of P+%% and confirming in the same Aeed the
:scritura de donation propter nuptias and :scritura de compra-enta a!o-ementioned. )t
was re-ersi!le error for the court to o-erloo* the pro!ati-e -alue of these notarized
documents.
. donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effecti-e transfer of title o-er
the propert$ from the donor to the donee and the donation is perfected from the moment
the donor *nows of the acceptance !$ the donee. 7nce a donation is accepted the
donee !ecomes the a!solute owner of the propert$ donated.
#he donation of the first parcel made !$ the .quino spouses to petitioners 2ose and
.nastacia 1elasquez who were then '6 and '% $ears old respecti-el$ was accepted
through their father Cesario 1elasquez and the acceptance was incorporated in the
!od$ of the same deed of donation and made part of it and was signed !$ the donor
and the acceptor. Legall$ spea*ing there was deli-er$ and acceptance of the deed and
the donation e,isted perfectl$ and irre-oca!l$. #he donation inter -i-os ma$ !e re-o*ed
onl$ for the reasons pro-ided in .rticles 7+% 7+D and 7+& of the Ci-il Code.
'5&
#he donation propter nuptias in fa-or of Cesario 1elasquez and Camila de Guzman
o-er the third and si,th parcels including a portion of the second parcel !ecame the
properties of the spouses 1elasquez since '6'6. #he deed of donation propter nuptias
can !e re-o*ed !$ the non3performance of the marriage and the other causes
mentioned in .rticle 8+ of the Bamil$ Code. #he alleged reason for the repudiation of
the deed i.e. that the .quino spouses did not intend to gi-e awa$ all their properties
since .natalia had se-eral children to support is not one of the grounds for re-ocation of
donation either inter -i-os or propter nuptias although the donation might !e inofficious.
#he :scritura compra-enta o-er another portion of the second parcel and the Aeed of
con-e$ance dated 2ul$ 'D '656 in fa-or of Cesario and Camila 1elasquez o-er the
remaining portion of the second parcel is also -alid. )n fact in the deed of sale the
.quino spouses ratified and confirmed the rights and interests of Cesario 1elasquez
and Camila de Guzman including the pre-ious deeds of con-e$ance o-er the second
parcel in the complaint and such deed of sale !ecame the !asis for the issuance of #C#
in the names of Cesario 1elasquez and Camila de Guzman. #he !est proof of the
ownership of the land is the certificate of title and it requires more than a !are allegation
to defeat the face -alue of #C# which en"o$s a legal presumption of regularit$ of
issuance. Nota!l$ during the lifetime of Cesario 1elasquez he entered into contracts of
mortgage and lease o-er the propert$ as annotated at the !ac* of the certificate of title
which clearl$ esta!lished that he e,ercised full ownership and control o-er the propert$.
Petitioners were a!le to esta!lish that these four parcels of land were -alidl$ con-e$ed
to them !$ the .quino spouses hence the$ no longer formed part of the con"ugal
properties of the spouses at the time of their deaths. .s regards the fourth and fifth
parcels petitioners alleged that these were also con-e$ed to third persons and the$ do
not claim an$ right thereto.
)n -iew of the foregoing the action of partition cannot !e maintained. #he properties
sought to !e partitioned !$ pri-ate respondents ha-e alread$ !een deli-ered to
petitioners and therefore no longer part of the hereditar$ estate which could !e
partitioned. No co3ownership e,ists !etween pri-ate respondents and petitioners.
Go4&aes v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 110335, (54e 18, 2001, 358 S,R+ 598
3eo, (.
*+,-S. Aeceased spouses )gnacio and 0arina Gonzales were registered owners of
two parcels of agricultural land. Petitioners are the successors3in3interest or the children
and grandchildren of the deceased spouses. 7n the other hand pri-ate respondents
are the farmers and tenants of said spouses who ha-e !een culti-ating the parcels of
land e-en !efore 8orld 8ar )) either personall$ or through their predecessors3in3
interest. 0arina Gonzales died intestate and appointed as administrati, was petitioner
'5+
Lilia Gonzales. Prior to the partition of said estate )gnacio Gonzales e,ecuted a Aeed
of Aonation in fa-or of his grandchildren !ut was not registered. 8hen Presidential
Aecree No. 27 too* effect the landholdings of the said spouses were placed under
7peration Land #ransfer. Pri-ate respondents were then issued the corresponding
Certificates of Land #ransfer. #he administrati, of the spouses/ estate Lilia Gonzales
filed an application for retention requesting that their propert$ !e e,cluded from the
7peration Land #ransfer. )nitiall$ it was denied !ut was appro-ed due to the deed of
donation.
/SS01. 8hether or not the propert$ su!"ect of the deed of donation which was not
registered when P.A. No. 27 too* effect should !e e,cluded from the 7peration Land
#ransfer.
H1L2. No. .rticle 7D6 of the Ci-il Code pro-ides inter alia that Iin order that the
donation of an immo-a!le ma$ !e -alid it must !e made in a pu!lic document
specif$ing therein the propert$ donated and the -alue of the charges which the done
must satisf$.J Corollaril$ .rticle 7%6 of the same Code e,plicitl$ states that Ithe titles of
ownership or other rights o-er immo-a!le propert$ which are not dul$ inscri!ed or
annotated in the 4egistr$ of Propert$ shall not pre"udice third persons.J Brom the
foregoing pro-isions it ma$ !e inferred that as !etween the parties to a donation of
immo-a!le propert$ all that is required is for said donation to !e contained in a pu!lic
document. 4egistration is not necessar$ for it to !e contained in a pu!lic document. )t is
not necessar$ for it to !e considered -alid and effecti-e. Howe-er in order to !ind third
persons the donation must !e registered in the 4egistr$ of Propert$. )n the case at !ar
the donation e,ecuted !$ )gnacio Gonzales in fa-or of his grand children although in
writing and dul$ notarized has not !een registered in accordance with law. Bor this
reason it shall not !e !inding upon pri-ate respondents who did not participate in said
deed nor had no actual *nowledge thereof.
/mper$a v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 112!83, "%tober 8, 1999, 317 S,R+ 393
Go4&aga B Re'es, (.
*+,-S. Leoncio )mperial was the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 52857 sq.
m. and located in .l!a$. 7n 2ul$ 7 '6&' Leoncio sold the lot for Php '.%% to his
ac*nowledged natural son petitioner in this case. Petitioner and 1ictor )mperial
adopted son of Leoncio agreed that despite the designation of the contract as Aeed of
.!solute ;ale the transaction is in fact a Aonation. #wo $ears after Leoncio filed a
complaint for the .nnulment of Aonation. )t was howe-er resol-ed through a
compromise agreement under the following terms and conditions< ?'@ Leoncio
recognized and agreed the legalit$ and -alidit$ of the rights of petitioner> and ?2@
petitioner agreed to sell a designated '%%% sq.m. portion of the donated land.
'57
Leoncio died lea-ing onl$ two heirs< petitioner and 1ictor )mperial. 7n 0arch 8 '6+2
1ictor was su!stituted in the complaint for annulment. He mo-ed for the e,ecution of
"udgment and it was granted. .fter '& $ears 1ictor died and was sur-i-ed onl$ !$ his
natural father 4icardo 1illalon. 4icardo 1illalon is a lessee of the portion of the su!"ect
propert$. 1illalon died lea-ing his heirs Cesar and #eresa 1illalon respondents in this
case. )n '68+ respondents filed a complaint for the annulment of the donation.
.llegedl$ it impairs the legitime of 1ictor )mperial.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not the respondents ha-e the right to question the inofficious donation
and see* its reduction.
2.@ 8hether or not the 5%3$ear prescripti-e period is applica!le in the reduction of the
inofficious donation.
H1L2. '.@ 9es. .t the time of the su!stitution the "udgment appro-ing the compromise
agreement has alread$ !een rendered. 1ictor merel$ participated in the e,ecution of the
compromise "udgment. He was not a part$ to the compromise agreement. 8hen 1ictor
su!stituted Leoncio he was not deemed to ha-e renounced his legitime. He was
therefore not precluded or estopped from su!sequentl$ see*ing the reduction. Nor are
1ictor/s heirs upon his death precluded from doing so. #his is in accordance with
.rticles 772 and '%&5 of the new Ci-il Code to wit<
.rticle 772. 7nl$ those who at the time of the donor/s death ha-e a right to the legitime
and their heirs and successors in interest ma$ as* for the reduction of the inofficious
donation ,,,.
and
.rticle '%&5. )f the heir should die without ha-ing accepted or repudiated the
inheritance his rights shall !e transmitted to his heirs.
2.@ No. Cnder .rticle ''DD of the New Ci-il Code actions upon an o!ligation created !$
law must !e !rought within ten $ears from the right of action accrues. #hus the '%3$ear
prescripti-e period applies to the o!ligation to reduce inofficious donations required
under .rticle 77' of the New Ci-il Code to the e,tent that the$ impair the legitime of
compulsor$ heirs.
#he cause of action to enforce a legitime accrues upon the death of the donor3
decedent. Clearl$ so since onl$ then that the net estate ma$ !e ascertained and on
which !asis the legitimes ma$ !e determined. )t too* 2D $ears since the death of
Leoncio to initiate this case. #hus the action has long prescri!ed. Not onl$ has
prescription set in the$ are also guilt$ of estoppel and laches. Bifteen $ears after the
death of Leoncio 1ictor died. 4icardo 1illalon 1ictor/s sole heir died four $ears later.
8hile 1ictor was ali-e he ga-e no indication of an$ interest to contest the donation of
his deceased father.
'58
Rep5b$% o# t6e ;6$$pp$4es v. S$$m
G.R. No. 1!0!87, +pr$ 2, 2001, 357 S,R+ 1
Fap54a4, (.
*+,-S. 4espondent ;pouses ;ilim and 0angu!at donated a &+%% square meter
parcel of land in fa-or of the =ureau of Pu!lic ;chools of the 0unicipalit$ of 0alangas
Oam!oanga del ;ur. )n the Aeed of Aonation the respondents imposed the condition
that the said propert$ should !e Iused e,clusi-el$ and fore-er for school purposes onl$.J
#his donation was accepted !$ the Aistrict ;uper-isor of the =ureau through an
.ffida-it of .cceptance andHor Confirmation of Aonation.
. school !uilding was thereafter constructed on the donated land. Howe-er another
school !uilding that was also supposed to !e allocated for the donated parcel of land
could not !e released since the go-ernment required that it !e !uilt upon a ' hectare
parcel of land. =$ reason of this the Aistrict ;uper-isor and the -ice3ma$or/s wife
entered into a Aeed of :,change where!$ the donated lot was e,changed with a !igger
lot owned !$ the latter. Consequentl$ the school !uildings were constructed on this
new school site and the school !uilding pre-iousl$ erected on the donated land was
dismantled and transferred to the new location. 7ne da$ respondents were surprised
when he saw the -ice3ma$or constructing a house on the donated land.
/SS01S.
'.@ 8hether or not there was a -alid donation despite non3notation of the acceptance in
the Aeed of Aonation as required in .rticle 7D6.
2.@ 8hether or not the condition on the donation was -iolated.
H1L2. '.@ 9es. #he purpose of the formal requirement for acceptance of a donation is
to ensure that such is dul$ communicated to the donor. )n the case at !ar a school
!uilding was immediatel$ constructed after the donation was e,ecuted. 4espondents
had *nowledge of the e,istence of the school !uilding put up on the donated lot. #he
actual *nowledge !$ respondents of the construction and e,istence of the school
!uilding fulfilled the legal requirement that the acceptance of the donation !$ the donee
!e communicated to the donor.
2.@ No. #here was no -iolation e-en after the donated lot was e,changed for another
one. #he purpose of the donation remains the same which is for the esta!lishment of a
school. #he e,clusi-it$ of the purpose was not altered or affected. )n fact the e,change
of the lot for a much !igger one was in furtherance and enhancement of the purpose of
the donation. #he acquisition of the !igger lot pa-ed the wa$ for the release of funds for
the construction of =agong Lipunan school !uilding which could not !e accommodated
!$ the limited area of the donated lot.
'56
Gestopa v. ,o5rt o# +ppeas
G.R. No. 11190!, "%tober 5, 2000, 3!2 S,R+ 105
<5$s5mb$4g, (.
*+,-S. ;pouses Aanlag were the owners of si, parcels of unregistered lands. #he$
e,ecuted three deeds of donation mortis causa, two of which were in fa-or of 0ercedes
Aanlag3Pilapil. .ll deeds contained the reser-ation of the rights of the donors to amend
cancel or re-o*e the donation during their lifetime and to sell mortgage or encum!er
the properties donated during the donorsE lifetime if deemed necessar$. #he spouses
then e,ecuted another deed of donation inter vivos in fa-or of 0ercedes which
contained the condition that the donors Aanlag spouses shall continue to en"o$ the
fruits of the land during their lifetime and that the donee en"o$ the fruits of the land
during their lifetime and that the donee cannot sell or dispose of the land during the
lifetime of the donors without their prior consent and appro-al. Consequentl$ 0ercedes
caused the transfer of the parcels of landEs ta, declaration to her name and paid the
ta,es on them.
;pouses Aanlag sold two parcels of lots to ;pouses .gripino and )sa!el Gestopa and
e,ecuted a deed of re-ocation reco-ering the si, parcels of land su!"ect to the deed of
donation inter vivos. 0ercedes Pilapil filed with the 4egional #rial Court against the
;pouses Aanlag and Gestopa for quieting of title o-er the parcels of land and alleged
that the land was donated to her !$ Aiego Aanlag and that she accepted the donation
openl$ and pu!licl$ e,ercised rights of ownership o-er the donated properties and
transferred the ta, declarations to her name. ;he also alleged that the donation inter
vivos was coupled with conditions and according to 0ercedes since its perfection she
had complied with all of them> that she had not !een guilt$ of an$ act of ingratitude> and
that Aiego Aanlag had no legal !asis to re-o*e the donation and then in selling the two
parcels of land to the Gestopa spouses.
)n their opposition the spouses Gestopa and the Aanlag a-erred that the deed of
donation was null and -oid !ecause it was o!tained !$ 0ercedes through machinations
and undue influence. :-en assuming it was -alidl$ e,ecuted the intention was for the
donation to ta*e effect upon the death of the donor and that the donation was -oid for it
left the donor Aiego Aanlag without an$ propert$ at all.
/SS01. 8hether the donation is a donation inter vivos or a donation mortis causa.
H1L2. #he Court 4ules that it was a donation inter vivos. #he Court affirmed the Court
of .ppealsE decision that the reser-ation !$ the donor of lifetime usufruct indicated that
he transferred to 0ercedes the ownership o-er the donated properties> that the right to
sell !elonged to the donee and the donorEs right referred to that of merel$ gi-ing
consent> that the donor changed his intention !$ donating inter vivos properties alread$
donated mortis causa> that the transfer to 0ercedesE name of the ta, declarations
pertaining to the donated properties implied that the donation was inter vivos> and that
0ercedes did not purchase two of the si, parcels of land donated to her.
'D%
)n ascertaining the intention of the donor all of the deedEs pro-isions must !e read
together. #he granting clause shows that Aiego donated the properties out of lo-e and
affection for the donee. #his is a mar* of a donation inter vivos. ;econd the reser-ation
of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer the na*ed ownership
o-er the properties. #hird the donor reser-ed sufficient properties for his maintenance
in accordance with his standing in societ$ indicating that the donor intended to part with
the si, parcels of land. Lastl$ the donee accepted the donation.
.n acceptance clause is a mar* that the donation is inter vivos. .cceptance is a
requirement for donations inter vivos. Aonations mortis causa !eing in the form of a
will are not required to !e accepted !$ the donees during the donorsE lifetime. #he right
to dispose of the properties !elonged to the donee. #he donorEs right to gi-e consent
was merel$ intended to protect his usufructuar$ interests. #he limitation on the right to
sell during the donorsE lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees and
donation was alread$ effecti-e during the donorsE lifetime. Hence the moment that it
was accepted !$ 0ercedes Aanlag3Pilapil ownership of the properties was transferred.
S5m$pat v. )a4ga
G.R. No. 155810, +5g5st 13, 200!
-$4ga, (.
*+,-S. #he spouses Placida #a!o3ta!o and Lauro ;umipat acquired three parcels of
land. #he couple was childless. Lauro ;umipat howe-er sired fi-e illegitimate children.
#he$ are the petitioners herein. Lauro e,ecuted a document denominated IAeed of
.!solute #ransfer andHor Muit3Claim o-er 4eal PropertiesJ in fa-or of the petitioners. 7n
the document it appears that the signature of his wife Placida which indicates that she
ga-e her marital consent. 0oreo-er it was alleged that Lauro e,ecuted it when he was
alread$ -er$ sic* and !edridden that upon petitioner L$dia/s request their neigh!or
=en"amin 4i-era lifted the !od$ of Lauro whereupon L$dia guided his hand in affi,ing
his signature on the document. L$dia left !ut later returned on the same da$ and
requested Lauro/s unlettered wife Placida to sign on the said document. .fter Lauro/s
death his wife Placida and petitioners "ointl$ administered the properties &%( of the
produce went to his wife. .s wife/s share in the produce of the properties dwindled she
filed a complaint for declaration of partition disclaiming an$ partition in the e,ecution of
the su!"ect document.
/SS01. 8hether or not the questioned deed !$ its terms or under the surrounding
circumstances has -alidl$ transferred title to the disputed properties to the petitioners.
H1L2. No. . perusal of the deed re-eals that it is actuall$ a gratuitous disposition of
propert$ G a donation G although Lauro ;umipat imposed upon the petitioners the
condition that he and his wife Placida shall !e entitled to one3half ?'H2@ of all the fruits
or produce of the parcels of land for their su!sistence and support. 8here the deed of
donation fails to show the acceptance or where the formal notice of the acceptance
'D'
made in a separate instrument is either not gi-en to the donor or else not noted in the
deed of donation and in the separate acceptance the donation is null and -oid. )n this
case the donees/ acceptance of the donation is not manifested either in the deed itself
or in a separate document. Hence the deed as an instrument of donation is patentl$
-oid. #he Court declared that the deeds of sale questioned therein are not merel$
-oida!le !ut null and -oid a! initio as the supposed seller declared under oath that she
signed the deeds without *nowing what the$ were. #he significant circumstance meant
the Court added that her consent was not merel$ marred !$ -ices of consent so as to
ma*e the contracts -oida!le !ut that she had not gi-en her consent at all.
'D2