VENUE
If its a personal action, it should be filed where the plaintiff or any
of the principal plaintiff resides or where the defendant or any of the
defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.
If its a real action or action to recover possession and ownership
over a property, it should be filed where the property is situated.
JUNE 24, 2014 TUESDAY
How properties are classified:
But in this case, the building was still adjudicated to the mortgagee
because the subsequent purchase have actual knowledge of the
chattel mortgage.
SO, if there is a knowledge of the 3rd party of that erroneous
mortgage, therefore, he cannot be characterized as purchasher in
good faith.
Even if it is registered, it does not cure the defect. The building is
always an immovable. The law or jurisprudence says that as far as
the parties as concerned, it may be given effect but only up to that.
Beyond the parties, it does not bind the third person unless that
third person had actual knowledge just like in the Leung Yee case.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! STUDY THIS PART KAY LIBOG GAMAY!
JULY 26, 2014 THURSDAY
Article 415 enumerates 10 immovable properties
Most of the cases dealing with interpreting 415 involve immovable
by destination and the context in which an issue arises in regard to
what is the classification of these machineries and equipments is
real property taxation.
Case: Makati Leasing
-
*In the above two cases, they themselves questioned the validity of
the document who themselves executed.
foreclosed.
This is a case which is primarilly an application on laws of
oblicon.
What is agreed by the parties should bind the contracting
parties.
Caltex loan to gas operators some equipment water tank which are essential to the business of a gasoline distribution.
Caltext objected because they were just leasing the land daw since
the equipments are placed not by the owner but by the one leasing
the land.
In the light of article 415, that kind of argument is correct. BUT! The
SC uses the real property tax code. In the real tax code, it provides
another definition for improvements and machineries when it comes
to taxation.
Is it required in the real tax code for the item, equipment or
machinery to be taxable they must be placed there by the owner?
NO, it is not required that it must be placed by the owner. As long as
it is essential to the industry it is covered under the tax code.
Opinion ra ni:
In real property taxation, real property tax code and gamiton.
SC for as long as the objective is liability we shall blabla in an
interpretation where the tax payer will be held liable. So in order for
the tax payer to be liable and tax code should be applied, we shall
apply the tax code.
(DILI DAW MU ATTEMPT UG SETTLE SI SIR, SO POSSIBLE DILI SIYA MU
ASK UG QUESTION PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE KUNG ASA ANG IAPPLY TAX CODE OR 415)
SO movable property:
- Susceptible of being appropriated
- Not included in Article 415
But subject to some exception like it can be an object of the chattel
pursuant to chattel mortgage law so that is still valid.
So if its a growing fruits and they are used an object of a chattel
mortgage, its validity is not limited only as between the parties,
even third persons are allowed to intervene because there is a law
that allows to have it as an object of a chattel mortgage.
(REMEMBER!!! MU GAWAS NI SA EXAM)
So, dili to mu apply nga valid ra as between the parties if the object
is growing fruits and chattel mortgage. ***
Accretion of land
The executive department has the power to classify the land as a &
d, the courts had no authority with such.
Effect of Estoppel
General Rule: No estoppel can be held against the government.
The exception was applied in this case.
Exception: When there is a mistake
Case: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Republic of the Philippines
There was a title issued over a parcel of land but the time it was
issued, the land was still classified as timberland. Many years
passed, this titles was subdivided until one the purchaser of that
land mortgage it to land bank. And there were settlers who
questioned the validity of the title claiming that at the time the
mother title was issued the land was classified as timberland which
cannot be alienated. When there was already a supervening event,
it was already classfied as alienable and disposable. But the time
the mother title was issued, it was not yet a & d. SC held - Doctrine
here is that the matter of classifying land of the public domain, the
prerogative to classify belongs to the executive department. The
court cannot do anything with what the executive says.
Subdivision Road
Case: Woodridge school vs Arb
Woodridge would like to have access with the road owned by ARB.
ARB want to close the land and woodridge objected. Woodridge
objected that the property is part of the public dominion on the
basis of PD 1216 so subdivision road pursuant to that law, it shall
be donated to the municipality. SHALL a mandatory donation.
What if the effect if the road lot is donated to the government? A
municipality can acquire dominion over the property. This road lot
which is formerly a private property will now become a property of
public dominion, the subdivision developer even if it was the former
owner, cannot demand compensation for its use because its already
a property of public dominion.
HOWEVER, in this case, there is no donation yet, SO NO DONATION,
NO ACCEPTANCE = private property pa ang land. SO on the issue of
compensation, ARB can still ask from woodrige while it is still not yet
donated to the local government.
intended for public use, others are property for public service.
Province alleged that they are deprived of just compensation.
Kay patrimonial man kuno so it is a property which is held by the
Local Government in its proprietary capacity. Mura ra kag gikuhaan
ug property niana. If you will just transfer the property, it would
amount to deprivation without due process of law. It must be
compensated.
BUT SC RULED OTHERWISE because the congress had direct control
over the properties since these properties are intended for public
use. Because of Municipal corporations, it is property for public use.
That is what the Special Law states.
Q: Is it correct to say that properties for pubblic service is a
patrimonial property?
A: NO
Can you tell us the rules before they can be coverted to a
patrimonial property?
- Declare as a & d
- Express act from congress or presidential proclamation that it
is already a patrimonial property
Case: Laurel vs Garcia
Even if it is not actually devoted to actual public use, as long as
there is no explicit act declaring the property as patrimonial, It
remains property for public use. If is property for public use, what
then is it consequence if the executive would attemp to sell it? The
sale would be invalid.
SO NO FORCED ABANDONMENT.
However, abandonment is not an automatic cause for the property
to be declared as patrimonial, there must be a confirmatory explicit
act from the government.
Case: Chavez vs PEA
In PEA dili sila ang mu gamit sa yuta. They are merely temporary
holders of lands of the public domain.
So in Chavez vs NHA case exception ni because IMPLIED
CONVERSION. There is no presidential proclamation nor legislative
act that converted the land to patrimonial property.
Conversion of patrimonial property must be an explicit act IS NOT
AN ABSOLUTE RULE.
PROPERTY OF PROVINCES, CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
Q: How to we classify the properties of provinces, cities and
municipalities?
A: Under the Civil Code, they are classified as for public use or
patrimonial.
Q: For property of public service, where it will belong? Public use or
patrimonial property? Property for public service is classified as
property for public use and NOT patrimonial property.
Case: Province of Zamboanga vs City of Zamboanga
When the city of zamboanga was created, the province was not
happy about it.
Out of 50 properties there, only 2 are intended for public use, others
are property for public service. Province alleged that they are
deprived of just compensation. Province relied on the Civil Code
that if it is not a property for public use, it is patrimonial.
Public Use open to the general public
Public Service only authorized persons are allowed to use
If kunohay patrimonial, kailangan sila bayran because that would
amount to taking without due process of law.
SC ruled otherwise, Property of public service is placed on the same
footing for property of public use and NOT patrimonial. So there is
no unlawful taking here. They are allowed to transfer the property
without just compensation.
In 424, sa last paragraph naa without prejudiced to special laws,
since 424 is a general law, it must give way to a special law which is
in the case CORPORATION. And in the law of coroporation, property
of public service is placed on the same footing with the property for
public use. And if its a property for public use, the control of that
property still lies on the state.
*If mu ingon ka that the province is not just a mere trustee, you
have to prove that you acquire that property through your own
corporate funds. Otherwise, if you cannot prove that you have to
seek the permission or authority from the legislature. There must be
a law giving you a permission to dispose that porperty.
^Case: Manila Lands vs CA
GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Funds of government corporation
Q: What is the rule with regards to disbursement of public funds?
A: There must be a law for appropriation
-
Right to enjoy
Right to dispose
Right to vindicate right to institute the necessary legal
actions to recover his possession to the thing in case he is
dispossessed of the thing he owned
Specific
The right to the space ABOVE and BELOW the land you occupy
RIGHTS OF AN OWNER
Q: What are the rights of an owner?
Right to enjoy
Right to dispose
Right to vindicate
Q: What do you mean by right to vindicate?
Right to vindicate - the right to recover the possession of real
or personal property
Q: What the remedies available that can be resorted to by the
owner?
A: Replevin, Forcible Entry, Unlawful detainer, Injuction and
Writ of Possession
Q: What do you understand by replevin?
A: The right to recover personal property
Replevin basis of remedy is ownership
Q: If the subject is a real property, what are the available legal
remedies?
A: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer, Action Publiciana and
Action Reivindicatoria - Recovery of possession. Although the
possession on each of these remedies, the nature of the
possession involved in each of the remedies are different.
Let us make a distinction now.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
The nature of the possession is that you are the one in actual
and physical possession
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Recovery of possession against one whose right to the
Action Reinvidicatoria
- Still an action to recover possession but this time the basis is
ownership
- You claim that you have possession because you are the
owner
Injunction Rule 58 Rules of Court
- This can be a remedy Main or Provisional
- Can be resorted to when you are dispossessed of your
property by force and you would ask mandatory injunction
from the court that in the mean time that the case is filed, you
will be reinstated to be in possession of the property
Writ of Possession
- Is available in cadastral cases. There is already judgment from
the court then there are occupants in the property, you are
entitled to be issued a writ of possession. You dont to file a
case again.
- Also available when you are a buyer in a foreclosure sale, then
the owner was not able to redeem, so you are now the
absolute owner. If this new owner want to vacate the old
owner, he will just ask from the court issuance a writ of
possession.
Namatay ang administrator and the wife takes over and this
wife caused the transfer of this property to the physician
whose possession is now contested by the heirs of the owner.
Ang gi saligan sa doctor is the transfer from the wife of an
administrator
SC the wife cannot validly transfer possessory rights to the
physician because she has no right in the first place. Even if
you are an administrator, the right of an administrator is just
to administer the property. You cannot sell EXCEPT there is a
judicial/court order allowing the adminstrator to transfer
otherwise that is invalid.
SO even if you are in good faith, you have no right over the
possession of the thing because the transferor is an invalid
transferor.
In the part of the heirs, when the real owner died, the heirs
step into the shoes of the owner.
The SC ruled in this case that there is basis to eject the
physician.
Eminent Domain
-
While it is true that you are now the owner, you cannot violate
the conditions imposed by the donor otherwise, the donor can
rescind the deed of donation.