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
Extent
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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.
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?
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.