Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Sept.

18, 2015
Recits:
Q: What are the modes of losing possession?
Art. 555: Abandonment, Assignment, Deterioration or loss of
the thing and possession of another subject to the provisions of
art. 537
By abandonment, will abandonment as a mode of losing
possession apply in Lands?
A: Abandonment will not apply in lands especially if these are
registered lands. As you have learned in your LandTi., even if
you are not actually in possession of the property, you are
protected, so long as it is under the protection of the Torrens
system. It does not affect registered lands because by
abandonment, it converts the thing into res nullus, meaning
there is no owner. However, in registered lands, even if you
abandon the land, your PD 1529 protects your ownership over
the land even if you are not in actual physical possession of
the property.
The possessory acts of a mere holder. We have already
discussed that if you are a possessor by mere holder, then of
course that will not prejudice the lawful owner or the lawful
possessor of the property. Now, moving on to possession of
movables- Art. 559. If you are in possession of a certain
movable property, what are the presumptions created by law
by the possession of such movable property?
If youre in possession of a movable in good faith, the law
presumes that you have a title over the movable property, that
is Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in
good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has
lost an immovable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof
may recover it from the person in possession of the thing, that
is the general rule.
Now for example if you are an owner of a diamond ring. You
lost the diamond ring and then you now find it in possession
of a pawnshop, can you recover the ring from the pawnshop
without reimbursing anything to the pawnshop?
It depends on how the party in possession of the thing has
acquired it. If acquired in public sale- then the lawful owner
will have to reimburse the pawnshop for whatever it may cost
them (?) to acquire the ring. However, if the
pawnshop[ acquired it through somebody else, then the
pawnshop will be obliged to return the thing without any
reimbursement as to the value or amount that it has sustained
(?) over the pawning (?) of the diamond ring.
Now, what is the reason why if a 3rd person who is now in
possession of the thing and to whom the lawful owner was
unlawfully deprived of, what is the reason why you have to
make reimbursement if it was acquired through a public sale?
The reason why you have to reimburse the acquirer in a
public sale is because prior to the sale, there is notice to
everyone, in other words, there is an ample time for that
lawful owner or for that lawful possessor of that movable
property to go to the seller and to inform the seller and prove
that he has ownership over it. In acquisition not through a
public sale, there is no way of knowing that there was such
transfer, and therefore the person unlawfully deprived, with

proper proof, can get back the thing without any


reimbursement. This is because if na-notify na nga nay public
sale then wala ka ni-reklamo, then it is but fair to the acquirer
that he be reimbursed because you were notified that your
thing is to be on sale but you did nothing.
Case: Edu vs Gomez- as we said, it must be upon proper
proof. In this case, there was just filing of a criminal case
against the alleged person who has unlawfully deprived him of
the thing and the SC said that the mere filing of a case does
not tell you that there was unlawful deprivation because it is
still pending. Apart from that, the person whom he filed the
case against is not the same person who is now in possession
of the thing and therefore the one in possession of the thing is
not a party to the criminal proceedings and the party cannot
just be compelled to return the thing because it must be upon
proper proof.
Case: EDCAArt. 561: How possession can be lawfully recovered. Codal ra
ni. Wa man gi-discuss. ^^
So that ends your topic on possession.
USUFRUCT
Ques.: What is a usufruct?
Answer: Codal provision.
Maam: Usufruct is a right in favor of a person where such
right brands/ grants him the right to enjoy the fruits or the
right to use the property.
Q: Characteristics?
M: It is a real right because it is enforceable against the whole
world, as opposed against a personal right where it is
enforceable only to a specific person or persons. It is also
transmissible because as a usufructuary you cannot alienate it
for a price or gratuitously. It is also only of temporary duration
because the purpose is for the enjoyment of the usufructuary
and the maximum time is the life of the usufructuary. The right
of usufruct ends when the usufructuary dies, unless of course
there is proof to the contrary.
Lastly, the rights of usufruct may be constituted on real or
personal property, consumable or inconsumable things,
tangible or intangible. The ownership of course is vested in the
owner. Precisely, one person is the owner of the thing while
somebody else has the right to enjoy use of the thing and to
enjoy the fruits of the thing.
Q: How do we classify the rights of usufruct?
A: 7 classifications. See book. ^^
M: Example of a legal usufruct (usufruct created by law)?
Usufruct on a property of a minor- the right of the parents to
enjoy property or the fruits of a property of minor.
Since we said that the usufructuary has the right to enjoy the
use of the thing, this is somehow similar with a lease because
a lease also grants the lessee the right to enjoy or use of the
thing. What makes a usufruct different from a lease?
A: See book (7 differences)
1.

Extent

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Nature of the right


As to the creator
As to the cause
As to repairs
As to taxes
On other things

So it is created by the different agreement of the parties.


RIGHTS
We said that usufructuary is also a right, not only to the use of
the thing but also the enjoyment of the fruits of the thing in
usufruct. Now, as a general rule, we said that the fruits belong
to the naked owner. An exception of course is when the
possessor is in good faith during the time of his possession,
then he is entitle to the fruits of the possession that he is
possessing, at the same time also if there is a usufruct over the
thing then the usufructuary also enjoys the fruits of the thing.
Again as an exception to the general rule that the fruits belong
to the owner of the thing.
Q: Supposing the usufructuary in her enjoyment of the thing,
since we said that a usufructuary in her enjoyment of the thing
can actually alienate it or can let someone borrow that right of
usufructuary. If the usufructuary leases or rents out the
property in usufruct and during the term of the lease by a
usufructuary to a 3rd person, the usufruct ends; what shall be
the rule in the distribution of the rent?
A: the usufructuary shall only be entitled to the rent pertaining
to the duration of the usufruct because as we said, civil fruits
are deemed to accrue daily. Now, how about if the fruits are
not civil fruits but are natural and industrial, when shall we
say that the fruits shall belong to the usufructuary and the
fruits belong to the naked owner?
When the usufruct begins, if there is any growing fruits at the
beginning of the usufruct, then the fruits shall belong to the
usufructuary. But at the termination of the usufruct and there
are still growing fruits, that no longer belongs to the
usufructuary, that already belongs to the naked owner because
it has already been terminated/ perfected(?).
Is the usufructuary entitled to any type of reimbursement?
Pertaining to the fruits.
If there are growing fruits at the beginning of the usufruct, that
belongs to the usufructuary. Question then is: Is he entitled to
reimburse to the naked owner the gathering of these fruits
which were pending at the beginning of the usufruct and
which were gathered during the duration of the usufruct?
For fruits growing during the usufruct or growing fruits at the
beginning of the usufruct, the usufructuary is NOT entitled to
reimbursement because he is the one enjoying the use and the
fruits. However, if there are growing fruits at the termination
of the usufruct, we said that that shall belong to the owner. But
remember the usufructuary, since it is already growing at the
termination of the usufruct then that means the usufructuary
prior to termination has shared(? 42: 54) on the cultivation
expenses, is the usufructuary entitled to reimbursement? The
answer is YES. BUT it shall only be reimbursed through the

proceeds of the fruits. Now if it will exceed, if the expenses


incurred by the usufructuary exceed the proceeds of the fruits,
is he entitled to the excess or reimbursement? NO. Because
the law says that it shall only be taken from the proceeds of
the fruits. Again, reimbursement shall only be given to the
usufructuary for growing fruits at the termination of the
usufruct and not at the beginning of the usufruct since they
have not contributed to the cultivation during the duration of
the usufruct.
How about as to hidden treasure? How do we deal with the
sharing of the hidden treasure if the usufructuary discovers the
treasure in the property of the usufruct?
M: Hidden treasure is not a fruit but the CC provides that the
usufructuary shall be considered as a stranger with respect to
the treasure. In other words, if he is the one who discovers the
hidden treasure, then he shall share of the hidden treasure.
The other half shall belong to the naked owner.
If a 3rd person discovers the hidden treasure in the property of
the usufruct, will the usufructuary have a share in the hidden
treasure?
No, because as we said he is a mere stranger. If he is not the
one who discovered the hidden treasure then he will not share,
it shall be the 3rd person and the other half to the naked owner.
Supposing that the usufruct is a parcel of land and there was
an accession in that parcel of land, who shall enjoy the
accession?
The usufruct shall have the right to the use of the accession.
Accession pertains to the owner of the land as to its ownership
BUT if the accreted property is usufruct, then the right to use
and the right to the fruits shall belong to the usufructuary. That
is 571. Not only accession but also servitude- next week.
What kind of contracts or transactions may the usufructuary
enter into pertaining to the thing of the usufruct?
The usufructuary can enter into any and all types of contracts
but only pertaining to the right to enjoy or to the fruits. In
other words, he can rent out or lease, he can sell the fruits of
the thing because the right belongs to the usufruct. He cannot
however, sell the property because that right belongs to the
naked owner. The ownership is still vested with the naked
owner. Again, the usufructuary is only entitled to enjoy the use
of the thing and the fruits of the thing such that any contract
that he enters into will also end when the usufruct terminates.
There is just one exception: on rural land which are used for
agricultural purposes. Why? Because if you rent out a rural
land for agricultural use or purposes, basi wala nimo na-timing
ang pag-rent out sa property, supposing the leasing out of the
rural land used for agricultural purposes was for one year, and
thte type of fruit or grain that you are growing cannot be
harvested yet within that period, mulapas siya. So in that case,
the CC tell you that it will have to extend up to the time that
the agricultural year also will end because there are different
types of fruits or grains or root crops with different
agricultural years.
Cite an example of an abnormal usufruct:
Vehicle.
Why?
Art. 573 is an example of an abnormal usufruct. It is a usufruct
over a thing which will eventually deteriorate due to wear and

tear because in the enjoyment of the thing, you have to use it.
Just like a car, in order to enjoy it, you will have to use it
which will eventually cause wear and tear.
Lets say the usufruct over the car is for 5 years and then of
course for 5 years you use the car then there will be wear and
tear, upon the termination of the usufruct, the usufructuary
will have to return the car. Can the naked owner oblige the
usufructuary to restore the car in its original condition?
He cannot be made liable for the wear and tear because this is
an abnormal usufruct. Hence, you cannot oblige the
usufructuary to return it to its original condition. The only
condition would be that the usufructuary returns the car at the
time the usufruct ends.
What if the usufruct provides that the use of the car shall be
only under normal circumstances, but it is found that the
usufructuary used it for drag racing, will the usufructuary now
be liable for any damage that may have been cause to the car
when it was found out that it was used for drag racing contrary
to the agreement that it shall be used only for normal day-today use?
Yes. Because it is not for the purpose intended within the title.
Will your answer be different if there was no statement as to
the specific use to the thing of the usufruct?
Yes, because the naked owner does not enforce any mode of
using the thing, unless there is fraud. However, damage caused
may be offset with the improvements made by the
usufructuary= right of set-off in abnormal usufruct.
Another example: Consumable things
The second type of abnormal usufruct is a usiufruct on
consumable things or a thing that must be consumed or used
for you to enjoy the thing. Beacsue in oredr to enjoy it, you
have to consume it, so this is now an abnormal usufruct.
For normal usufructs, the obligation os to return the thing. But
this time, it is impossible to return the thing because you will
have to consume it to be able to enjoy it. So the law now says
that your obligation is to pay the appraised value of the thing
of the usufruct if there was an appraisal at the beginning of the
usufruct, or to pay the current value of the thing if there be no
appraisal.
It would now seem that it is now a loan, a simple loan or a
mutuum.
What are the obligations of the usufructuary if the usufruct is
on fruit-bearing trees and shrubs? See codal
If there is a calamity? See codal
The qualifying circumstance here is that it must be too
burdensome, otherwise, he has the obligation to replace the
trees or the trunks uprooted whether caused by a calamity or
an extra-ordinary event.
How about the obligations of the usufructuary when the
obligation is on woodlands and nurseries? See codal.
Remember that woodlands or nurseries belong to the State, so
if there is any usufructuary in favor of a person, such right
shall be created by the State.

How about if there is a usufruct created on a judicial action to


recover? This is a right that is now being given to another
person to use or enjoy. > See codal
The usufructuary now has a right to demand from the owner
whatever documents that he will be needing in order to have
the right to recover on a judicial action pertaining to the thing
of the usufruct. And if the U is successful, can he enjoy the
thing that he has recovered? Yes.
Expenses
Will the usufructuary be reimbursed of necessary expenses?
Yes, but only those pertaining to the capital or property itself,
not pertaining to the right. For example, land; if the
usufructuary pays for the real property taxes that pertains to
the property itself, not the right to the use or enjoyment of the
property, then he is entitled to reimbursement of those real
property taxes.
If for example, usufructuary leases out the property, and the
usufructuary pays income tax based on the rents he receive, is
he entitled to reimbursement of those necessary expenses? No,
because those necessary expenses pertain to the right to use or
to enjoy the fruits of the property; so that is his obligation to
pay and not the ___________ 1: 06
How about useful expenses (or improvements?), is he entitled
to reimbursement?
No, usufructuary is not entitled because he is the one enjoying
the use of the property, however at the termination of the
usufruct, he may remove such if it will not case damage or
injury to the property. He is not to be indemnified. Supposing
if he wants to remove it but he cannot do so because it would
cause damage, he cannot compel the naked owner to
indemnify him of those improvements. If also the usufructuary
does not wish to remove, can the naked owner compel the
removal? No.
May the usufructuary destroy those improvements? Yes he
may so long as again, it does not detstroy or cause damage to
the property. Can the naked owner stop him? No, the naked
owner cannot stop him because the right to remove includes
the right to destroy.
How about useful improvements? Not. Because these are for
mere pleasure, therefore usufructuary is not obliged to be
reimbursed.
Case: Moralidad vs Pernes
WON the agreement between the parties is that of a usufruct
or not?
*The SC in this case said that yes the agreement created is a
usufruct and there were conditions there that upon the
fulfillment of which shall continue the usufruct. Unfortunately
the conditions such as that they should live in harmony or in
cooperation were not met, so the usufruct ended. So there was
a question as to whether the spouses should___07_ the _____
and the husband after the improvement of the house, as to
whether they were entitled to reimbursement since according
to them it was a useful improvement. THE SC said no because
the law provides that for useful improvements, the
usufructuary is not entitled to reimbursement, they are only

entitled to remove it if it will not cause damage to the property


upon the termination of the usufruct.
Now your 580 also says that if you cause any damage it may
be set off with the improvements, now what if the
improvements that you introduced exceeds the value of the
damages? How do we deal with the excess? He can actually
remove the improvement permitting to the proportionate value
of the excess. You cannot remove all the improvements but
only that that will correspond to the value of the excess.
If the damage exceeds the improvements? The usufructuary
will have to pay for the excess. Also we have already
discussed the right of the naked owner to alienate the property
in the usufruct. He can still sell the property so long as it
is____________ not prejudicial to the usufruct. 04:49.
If it is prejudicial to the usufructuary, what will happen?
Naked owner will be liable for damages but only pertaining to
the corresponding interest of the use of the property. Whatever
the usufructuary may lose in its enjoyment, the naked owner
will have to pay back the usufructuary.
Art. 582: If the naked owner is a co-owner of a certain part of
the property of the usufruct, the usufructuary may enjoy the
rights as if he were a co-owner except on the alienation or
encumbrance of the property; only pertaining to the right to
enjoy the fruits or the right to use the thing. In other words, if
the property yields natural fruits, then he will have a share as
if he is a co-owner, if it produces civil fruits then he will also
share. However, if there is a partition now of the co-owned
property, he will also have to respect the partition. In other
words, if there is now a specific portion of the property that is
now being owned by the naked owner, and the contract
regarding usufruct continues, then he shall only possess the
use and the fruits only pertaining to the share of the naked
owner in the partition.
*question (Renee) I KENNOT HEAR*
Obligations of the usufructuary.
Your usufructuary has several obligations--- before, during,
upon termination.
Q: What are the obligations of the usufruct at the beginning or
at the commencement of the usufruct?
A: Make inventory. Provide security
Q: Who bears the expenses on the making of the inventory?
A: Usufructuary.
Q: Is there a particular form in which the inventory is to be
made?
A: No. CC does not provide.
M: However, it is encouraged, especially if it involves an
immovable property, then it is best to have it in a public
document.
Q: Is there a time when an obligation to make an inventory is
excused?
A: Yes, When the naked owner waives that obligation by the
usufructuary and When no one will be injured by the nonmaking of such inventory (585)- these also apply when
making of a security may be excused.
Q: Purpose of giving security?

A: To ensure that the usufructuary will be complying with his


obligations. One of these obligations is to secure the thing at
the end of the usufruct. Security may be used to answer for
damages that may happen during to the property during the
term of the usufruct.
Q: Is there a particular form of security?
A: No, as long as it is sufficient to cover the cost of the
property subject of the usufruct. May be a money or some
other thing so long as it is sufficient.
Instances when a security is inapplicable or cannot be asked of
from the usufructuary:
When a donor, in donating his property, reserves a right to
become a usufructuary of the property he donated.
The usufructuary rights of the parents over the property of
their children--- gratuitous. Since the parent is the one who
gave the property, so it is just right that he no longer be
obliged to give a security.
Is there a time when a parent may be asked to give security?
Yes, when the parent contracts a 2nd marriage. Reason: when
the parent contracts a 2nd marriage, such may be liable to other
children, so if the parent uses such property, it may inure to
the children of the 2nd marriage, hence a security must be
given. THAT is to protect the minor child who really owns the
property, it may lead to an abuse of the use of the property.
What if the usufructuary does not have sufficient means to
give as security? Secure promise under oath that he will take
care of the property in usufruct.
Obligations during the usufruct.
1st: Taking care of the property. How? By ordinary diligence of
a good father of a family. Does this include to make the
necessary ordinary repairs? Yes.
Supposing the usufructuary, since he can lease out his right,
can he be liable to the injury caused by a 3rd person for the use
of his rights to use the thing of the usufruct? Yes. The
usufructuary shall be liable and he can always go to the
substitute, while the owner of the property can go after the
usufructuary for any damages caused by the substitute of the
usufructuary.
591. Obligations when usufructuary is over a flock or herd or
livestock: see codal ^^
Par. 1: Some of the animals might die due to natural causes or
rapacity of beasts or prey. The obligation of the usufructuary is
to replace those animals that died but only through the young
ones that are produced because these are the fruits of the use
of the thing of the usufruct. If mas daghan pa ang namatay
kesa sa young ones, then he is not obliged to replace more
than the young ones that were produced during the duration of
the usufruct.
Par.2: If all should perish but without the fault of the
usufructuary, no replacement.
What if half ra ang ni-perish and not through his fault? He is
only obliged to deliver the remaining. This is partial loss.
However, if the usufruct be on sterile animals and some
animals died, what is the obligation of the usufructuary? They
are now to be considered as fungible things, then the

obligation of the usufructuary is to pay its appraised value if


there is appraisal or to pay the current market value of the
animals in usufruct if there be no appraisal; because there are
no young ones that are produced to replace the dead animals.
So it is now considered as fungible things.
In taking care good care of the usufruct as a good father of a
family, it also involves spending for ordinary repairs. What do
we mean by ordinary repairs? They are required by the wear
and tear due to the use of the thing and also required for its
preservation.
Extraordinary expenses: When considered extraordinary? To
determine this, you have to know the requisites for ordinary
expenses because if one is missing even if it is due to the wear
and tear but not necessary for its preservation, then it is
extraordinary repair.
In extraordinary expenses, it shall be borne by the naked
owner. But there is an obligation on the usufructuary to notify
the naked owner. If the naked owner shall unjustly refuse to
spend for the extraordinary expenses, the usufructuary may
advance the money for extraordinary expenses but of course
he can always ask for reimbursement.
In the determination if the usufruct is still to reimburse (?)
22:01, he may retain the thing in usufruct until he is
reimbursed. So he has a right of redemption pertaining to
extraordinary expenses.
Q: If the naked owner wishes to make certain improvements,
on the thing of the usufruct, can the usufruct say no to the
naked owner?
Art. 595: the naked owner can actually make some
improvements over the thing in the usufruct and the
usufructuary cannot stop the owner from doing so because the
ownership is still with the naked owner. The only qualification
is that it must not be prejudicial to the rights of the
usufuctuary. If it is prejudicial then the owner will be liable for
damages.
As to the payment of taxes, if the taxes or the annual fees
pertain to the thing itself or the capital, then it shall be borne
by the naked owner. If it is advanced by the usufructuary then
the usufructuary may ask for reimbursement. If the annual fee
or the charges pertain to the enjoyment of the thing, then it
shall be the usufructuary who shall be made liable. That is
596-597.
We mentioned before that there is a kind of usufruct where the
usufruct covers the whole patrimony or the enjoyment of all
the properties of the naked owner. If the naked owner has
debts, is the usufructuary obliged to pay the debts of the naked
owner.
Art. 598: If there is a stipulation that the usufructuary shall be
liable for the debts of the naked owner, he shall be liable to
pay his debts but only for debts contracted prior to the
constitution of the usufruct. If there is no stipulation, the
usufructuary may be held liable but only if the usufruct was
made in fraud of creditors.

599: Even without a security, your usufructuary can still enjoy


the fruits or interest of the matured credit. But the only
difference now is that if it is about the security, then he has to
ask for approval from the court or consent from the naked
owner because the security is not made a requirement for a
usufruct to be created. It is just an obligation on the part of the
usufructuary that he must do during the beginning of the
usufruct which in fact may be waived by the naked owner.
Supposing the usufructuary is already in possession of the
property in usufruct, if a 3rd person claims ownership over the
property and gives notice to the usufructuary; what are the
obligations of the usufructuary?
Notify the naked owner of acts of 3rd persons which may be
prejudicial to the naked owner, claiming his ownership. If it is
only the possession or the enjoyment of the property or the
fruits, then he is not obliged to make any notification to the
naked owner because he is the owner of that right, he can
defend for himself that right.
Who shall be liable for court expenses?
Usufructuary.
If the thing of the usufruct has been encumbered or mortgaged
by the naked owner to the bank, is the usufructuary obliged to
pay the debt of the naked owner to the bank?
No. Because it is the debt of the naked owner and not of the
usufructuary.
What happens if the naked owner fails to pay the debt and the
property in the usufruct is now judicially foreclosed by the
bank which means there is possession of the usufructuary;
what shall be the rights and the obligations of the parties in the
usufruct when that happens?
The owner shall be liable for damages. The usufructuary can
demand from the naked owner the payment of damages which
may have been caused to him during the dispossession of the
property.
What are the obligations of the usufructuary at the termination
of the usufruct?
To return the thing in usufruct- 612
To pay legal interest for the time that the usufruct lasts, on the
amount spent by the owner for extraordinary repairs and the
proper interest on the sums paid as taxes by the owner; and
To indemnify the naked owner for any losses due to his
negligence or of his transferees.
Modes of extinguishment of the usufruct:
1. Death of the usufructuary unless there is a contrary
intention
2. Expiration of the period of the usufruct or the
fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in
the agreement
3. Merger of the rights of the usufructuary and the
naked owner
4. Renunciation
5. Total loss of the thing in usufruct
6. Termination of the right of the person constituting the
usufruct- owner uses the thing
7. Prescription

1st: Death
Q: Supposing the usufruct was for a specific period of time
and the agreement was the usufruct shall last until Dec. 31,
2017. However, the usufructuary dies on August 31, 2015;
when shall we say the usufruct has terminated?
A: Upon death, Aug. 31, 2015- because it pre-supposes that
the enjoyment shall be during the lifetime of the usufructuary
unless it is stated in their agreement that even if the
usufructuary dies prior to the intended period, the usufruct
shall continue, then that shall be enjoyed by the heirs of the
usufructuary. ONLY if there is a contrary intention.
Will the death of a naked owner terminate the usufruct?
No. The ownership shall continue and pass on to the heirs of
the naked owner.
On expiration of period, case of
Baluran vs Navarro
Issue where was as to WON the agreement was a barter or or
only that of a usufruct. Agreement is a usufruct. There was a
condition that they could not sell the property without the
condition of the others, meaning it was not a sale of the
property or a barter but only that of a usufruct. A resolutory
condition was provided which, once fulfilled, the property
should be returned to the heirs. That is an example of a
resolutory condition.
Also, Moralidad vs Pernes where the resolutory condition was
that they shall live in harmony, in cooperation, however they
abused their Aunt or the owner of the property, that then is the
resolutely condition thereby extinguishing the usufruct.
We have already discussed the effect of partial loss where we
said that you are only to return what is left of the thing of the
usufruct so long as it is not your fault.
We mentioned earlier that the first mode of extinguishment is
the death of the usufructuary. What if the usufructuary is a
juridical person, can a usufruct be constituted in favor of a
juridical person?
Yes, but the usufruct shall not last for more than 50 years.
Why 50 years? Because a corporation only has a life of 50
years as provided for under the Corporation Code, renewable
for another 50 years.
And since we said that the period of the usufructuary shall be
during the period of his or her or its lifetime; then if the
usufructuary is a juridical person, then the usufruct should not
be more than 50 years.
NHA vs CA
Wa man gi-discuss. That is an example of a usufruct in favor
of a juridical person.
Supposing, there was a usufruct over a property and the period
of the usufruct was made to depend on the age of a 3rd person,
not the usufructuary, not the naked owner. Example A is the
usufructuary, B is the naked owner, and they agreed that the
usufruct shall continue until D is 18 years old. Unfortunately,
D, the 3rd person, died when he was 16 y.o; will the usufruct
continue for 2 more years?

Art. 606: The CC says that it shall continue until D could


have reached 18 years old because that was the pre-agreed
period, that is the general rule.
What is the exception? Meaning it shall end when the 3rd
person dies?
Only if the usufructuary has to support the 3rd person. It was
created so that the usufructuary makes use of the fruits for the
support of the 3rd person. Then when that 3rd person dies, the
usufruct also dies. But if that is not the case, the general rule is
it will continue in accordance with the pre-agreed period. Si in
my example, it will continue for 2 more years
Moving on to a usufruct constituted on a Land where there is a
building on it. The agreement was that the usufruct shall be on
the land; what shall be the consequences or the rights and
obligations of the naked owner of the usufructuary if the
building gets destroyed? What are the rights of the
usufructuary?
The usufruct shall continue because the usufruct is for the
land.
If the new owner decides to build a new building on the land,
the land where the usufruct is constituted; can the usufructuary
use the building? Yes. The usufruct on the land includes
whatever improvements there is on the land.
What if the usufruct is not on the land, but is just on the
building, and that building gets destroyed prior to the
termination of the usufruct; what are the rights of the
usufructuary?
The usufructuary can still make use of the materials of the
building that was destroyed and can continue the use of the
building. However, should the naked owner decide to build a
new building, can the usufruct still enjoy the use of the new
building? Not anymore. Because the usufruct was over the
building. This is different from the first example which was on
the land, so pagtukod sa new building na wa pa nahuman
period of the usufruct so maka-enjoy gihapon siya sa building
walay lalis. However, in this example, the building was
destroyed and the usufructuary may temporarily (?)enjoy the
use of the building which was the subject of the usufruct,
HOWEVER, pag mo-decide na si owner to use the land and
constructs a new building thereon, Bye bye usufructuary;
because the usufruct was just over the building and not the
land.
If the thing of the usufruct is a building and the usufructuary
decides to insure the building, what are the rights of the
usufructuary and the naked owner should the building be
destroyed?
If the usufructuary shares with the owner, since the law does
not provide a situation where the usufructuary pays for the
entire insurance, we do not have jurisprudence yet on that so
lets stick to what is written on the law.
So the law provides that the usufructuary and the naked owner
shall share in the payment of the insurance for the building in
usufruct. If that building gets destroyed, the naked owner has
2 options: either to make a new building, and it shall be the
right of the usufructuary to continue the use of the new
building. If however, the naked owner does not wish to
rebuild, the naked owner will, of course, enjoy the proceeds of

the insurance as indemnity as he gets paid (?) 04:30. However,


interest shall be paid to the usufructuary because the insurance
is considered as the fruits.
What if the usufructuary refuse to share on the insurance, and
the building on the usufruct gets destroyed?
The usufructuary, if the owner decides to build a new building,
does not have the right to continue the use but he still has the
right to the legal interest of the building and the materials for
the continuance of the usufructuary if the building gets
destroyed prior to the end of the period or the duration of the
usufruct.
What if the thing of the usufruct gets expropriated by the
government; does this terminate the usufruct?
The naked owner is obliged to substitute the thing that has
been expropriated of the same value and of the same
condition, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the
amount of the indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct.
Will bad use of the thing extinguish the usufruct?
If the thing of the usufruct is expropriated, it does not
extinguish the usufruct. Bad use will not extinguish too.
If the usufructuary does not take care of the thing of the
usufruct, it does not extinguish the usufruct. The bad use of
the thing does not extinguish the usufruct. However, if the bad
use of the thing of the usufruct causes considerable damage to

the naked owner, the naked owner has the right to ask for the
return of the thing but it does not terminate the usufruct. Why
do we say that the bad use of the thing does not terminate the
usufruct? Because it is the obligation on the part of the naked
owner to give the usufructuary the proceeds of the fruits if the
thing will produce proceeds or fruits, so adto gihapon sa
usufructuary.
If the usufruct is constituted in favor if several persons, will
the death of one of them extinguish the usufruct?
No. It shall be the death of the last survivor if the usufruct be
multiple usufruct.
Policarpio vs Asuncion
The case is an illustration that even if the majority of the
usufructuaries have already died, it does not extinguish the
usufruct. It will continue for so long as there is still a survivor
from the usufructuary.
WHATS IMPORTANT IS KEYWORDS IS THERE
BECAUSE THROUGH THESE WORDS, THEY (BAR
EXAMNINER) WILL ASSUME THAT THE ANSWER IS
CORRECT.