CIVIL Review PROPERTY Revised

1 PROPERTY: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness - Aristotle
In UNION, There is STRENGTH

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER: PROPERTY AS DISCUSSED BY MAYOL
2015 2016
TITLE I. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

Property vs Things
Things
it embraces ALL whether the object can be appropriated or not (generic)
Examples of things that cannot be appropriated are sunlight, planets, stars and therefore, these are THINGS.
Property only those things which can be APPROPRIATED
Article 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:
(1) Immovable or real property; or
(2) Movable or personal property
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Article 415. The following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the
material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in
such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be
carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or
preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these
places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or
coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property.
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil
Actually per se, the true real property kani ra jud lands and roads since by their very nature, they are real property. It
cannot be changed since they are real property per se, by their nature.
a.
By NATURE
Lands
Roads
b.
By DESTINATION
Machineries
Statues
Buildings
Reliefs
c.
By the ACT OF MAN (since you purposely planted it like no.2 of Article 415)
Trees
Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]
Plants
Growing fruits
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land
Who wouldve thought fertilizer is real property? Diba binuhat man nas tao? Then real. Pero naay qualification. Ang
iyang pagka-real dili tungod sa iyang pagka-fertilizer. Actually used on a piece of land- gigamit jud siyag tinuoray.
Pananglitan naay fertilizer akong gikuptan diri- this is personal property because wala pa man gamita.
If gispray na nako sa tanom na naa sa yuta nabutang- ang classification mausab real property na since actually
used na.
Pananglitan na pud, pundokun na pud nako (I will gather it back) personal na sad kay it is NOT used actually.
Therefore, kaning kamota, gamhanan kaayo ni!
Kung ang tanom wala gibutang sa yuta- its on water therefore kung mu abuno ko ana, dili jud na real property
because it is NOT used on a piece of land, rather its used on a container of water.
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant
Slag dumps (dust gikan sa mina agi sa soil which is part of the ground, hugaw as a consequence of mining)
Sa dili pa makuha real
If extracted na- personal na since ma-detached na siya on the ground. This is similar to enumeration no.2 growing
fruits wherein once it is already harvested, it now becomes personal property since it is no longer adhered to the
soil.
MOVABLE PROPERTY
Those not included in the enumeration in Article 415 is therefore, personal under Article 416.
Article 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they are fixed.
Article 417. The following are also considered as personal property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities, although they may have real estate. (336a)
Article 418. Movable property is either consumable or nonconsumable. To the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a
manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; to the second class belong all the others
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty
Rice/ rice lands growing pa sila, real property sila since they are attached or adhered to the land. But sa ilang
pagka-real property, under R.A. 1508, they can be objects of CHATTEL MORTGAGE. So by provision of law,
nahimong personal ang generally real property.
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science
Forces of nature- real jud na siya kay gikan sa makagagahom (example: Air)
In a gasoline station- maka inflate man ka didto, libre man. What if pabayron ka? Wa jud kay mahimo, makabayad
jud ka since forces of nature- theres a need for money to invest in order to contain the air so that it is made
available anytime we need it. So nag gasto man sila ana, bayad jud ka. There is already money involved to bring
about the result which is the air to inflate. Ang uban gi ingnan ranag libre as consolation sa magpagasolina.
Kanang mga classification apart from Public Dominion and Private ownership, kay di man gud na mao ang main thrust gud. Ang ato
lang jud nuh, private ownership atong concern.
TITLE II. OWNERSHIP
CHAPTER 1 OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Article 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or right
Pero mubo ra kayo pagkasulti diha ba. So actually:

Ownership in general, it is an independent power of a person over a thing for any purposes recognized by law
and within the limits prescribed by it.
Sa ato pa, ownership kay gahum na sa usa ka tag-iya pagpahimos sa butang, bisag unsay katuyoan basta
wala musupak sa balaod. So subject to the restriction or limitation imposed by law. Pero tanan ba nga butang
mapahimuslan sa tanan nimong kagustohan tungod lang kay ikaw ang tag-iya? Dili.
LIMITATIONS OF OWNERSHIP
Article 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.
Article 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just
compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.
Article 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof
shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
1)
Imposed by the STATE
Police Power, Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation
Example: Imong yuta naa sa kilid and the City Government would want to expand this particular street- road
widening and affected imong area, therefore there has to be expropriation proceedings by the State since private
property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Dili ka kabalibad. Usa ra juy reklamo nimo anghow much ra sa valuation.
So dili ka kaingon hawa kay akoa rani!- general and independent power, dili ka kahimo kay limitation man. Nganu
man? Based from the Regalian Doctrine that all properties within the territory of the State belongs to the State.
Murag as a matter of privilege lang na nga mapatitulohan nato and therefore private ownership. Pareha ras
succession na kung wala jud kay heredero or parente maadto sa State, it becomes patrimonial property of the
State.
2)
Imposed by LAW
Easement, Servitudes
Example: Ang yuta nimo naas likod. Wala juy lain access or dan so it will be subjected to easement or servitude,
becomes subjected to the state. Obligado kang muhatag, dili ka kapugong. Naay balaod which ordained that a
property owner must give way to the owner of the adjacent lot for access to the road or highway.
3)
Imposed by CONTRACT or WILL
Last will and testament, contracts
Example: The testator will say that you should not partition the property by a period of twenty years. So imong
idivide na? Dili, naa may limitation sa last will. They are bound to respect. Not necessarily to preserve and protect
BUT to RESPECT.
4)
Imposed by the OWNER HIMSELF
Lease, Pledge
Example: Ang akong butang akong gipa-abangan. Ang possession adto na sa lessee. I am the owner but I cannot
possess the property because possession is surrendered to the lessee.
5)
Pledge- accessory contract whereby a person pledges a property to serve as a security for the payment of the
principal. (Prenda na pledge- you deliver the property to the possession of the creditor; Chattel Mortgage- no
possession or delivery of property to the creditor)
If you have pledged your cellphone, you are denying yourself of your own use, you are still the owner but possession
is already to the creditor. You cannot use that at will.
Imposed by the Others
Sometimes, limitations are for and in the interest of justice- pananglitan nay balay, nya imong sunogun imong own
balay kay para nimo nindot ang aso(smoke) tanawn dah. So gisunog nimo. You cannot do that since that will
unduly harm or destroy other persons property. Dili kelangan masunog ang pikas balay since ang smoke or aso
mismo, makadala naman nag kadaot niya.
So because of conflicts of rights, you are restrained from exercising your rights
RIGHTS OF AN OWNER
Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
i.
Right to ENJOY
1) To use (jus utendi)
2) To consume by its use (jus abutendi)
A consumable is that which cannot be used or appropriated without being consumed i.e. pandesal
3) To the fruits (jus fruendi)
-Anything that it produces
ii.
Right to DISPOSE
1) To alienate
2) To transfer
3) To transform
4) To abuse
iii.
Right to VINDICATE OR FILE ACTION AGAINST ANY POSSESSOR OR HOLDER TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY
Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.
Article 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other
means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.
ARTICLE 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or
make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and
ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
Other consequences of ownership you can fence your property, make plantations, but you cannot complain on reasonable
requirements of aerial navigation, entitled to compensation in case your property is taken for public use, to exclude others from
enjoyment.
HIDDEN TREASURE
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found. Nevertheless, when the discovery
is made on the property of another, or of the state or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder.
If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to anyshare of the treasure.
If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the state may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity
with the rule stated.
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the
lawful ownership of which does not appear.
Pananglitan ang bag naa sa table- dili na hidden treasure kay makita man, dili siya hidden
Hidden- gitago
Unknown- wala hibaw-i
money, jewelry, or other precious objects mahalon na mga butang (ang jewelry same ra na sa precious objects kay all
jewelry are precious objects man, walay jewelry na barato)
the lawful ownership of which does not appear ang tinag-iya dili nato mahibaw-an
Scenario 1: Supposing the person of the finder is likewise the owner of the property. He found a treasure within the premises of his property.
Q: Who owns the treasure?
A: Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found. Therefore, if the
finder is the owner then all the treasures belongs to him.
Scenario 2: Supposing the person who found the treasure is a stranger meaning a person other than the owner.
Q: How much is the share of the stranger if he is the finder such treasure?
A: Dili sa nato hatagan because we still have to look at the circumstances. We still have to qualify. If you are a stranger we still
have to know under what circumstance that you were able to find the treasure. Supposing that you were a trespasser meaning
you dont have any authority to enter the premises then you are entitled to NOTHING. You will not receive anything. You will not
be rewarded because you are a trespasser.
Scenario 3: Supposing you are not a trespasser because you asked the permission of the owner to go inside his premises. Meaning you are
authorized by the owner.
Q: Will you give him ?
A: Not directly. Again, we still need to qualify first. We still have to know the circumstances - was it by chance or not by chance?
Scenario 4: If we have the owner of the premises and you asked her permission and she acceded. And you know for a fact that there are
jewelries that are hidden in that particular area. Then this is found NOT BY CHANCE because you already have foreknowledge about it. It
was not by chance when you found the jewelries. Then your share will be based upon on what was agreed between you (finder) and the
owner of the premises. It is the agreement of the parties that is controlling in this case. It should be based upon the agreement of the land
owner and the finder who already have the knowledge of the existence of the jewelry.
Scenario 5: Supposing this time it is by chance. The finder asked the permission of the owner to his premises and the latter acceded. And
you accidentally found the treasure. It was by chance that you found it. It was by stroke of good fortune when you found the treasure.
Q: Will the finder be entitled to a share of ?
A: Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious
objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. First, you have to determine whether the owner of the treasure is known
or unknown. If the owner is known then neither the finder nor the owner of the premises is entitled because you are duty bound to
return the thing to its rightful owner. They are obliged to return. If the owner is unknown then finally the finder is now entitled to .
TO SUMMARIZE:
1.
2.
If the finder is the OWNER
Hidden treasure found by the person in his own property so he (owner) will be deemed the owner of the hidden
treasure
If the finder is NOT the owner; other than the owner (STRANGER)
The treasure was found in the property by the person other than the owner, then we MUST QUALIFY:
i.
Trespasser (without the consent of the owner) NOT entitled to any share
ii.
Authorized by the owner qualify again
NOT by CHANCE NOT entitled to any share
By CHANCE qualify
Ownership is KNOWN duty bound to return to its rightful owner
Ownership is NOT KNOWN ONE-HALF (1/2)
OWNER
FINDER
OWNER
TRESPASSER
NOT BY
CHANCE
STRANGER
OWNERSHIP IS
KNOWN
AUTHORIZED
BY CHANCE
OWNERSHIP IS
NOT KNOWN
Question: if you are the finder of a wallet with 100K in it, legally what will you do?
Art. 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return to its previous possessor. If the latter is unknown, the finder
shall immediately deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality where the finding has taken place.
The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks in the way he deems best.
If the movable cannot be kept without deterioration, or without expenses which considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at
public auction eight days after the publication.
Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner having appeared, the thing found, or its value, shall be
awarded to the finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to reimburse the expenses.
Art. 720. If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to pay, as a reward to the finder, one-tenth of the sum or of the
price of the thing found.
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorpo rated or
attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
CLASSIFICATION OF ACCESSION
NATURAL
DISCRETA
INDUSTRIAL
FRUITS (ART 442)
CIVIL
INDUSTRIAL
ALLUVIUM
ACCESSION
IMMOVABLE
AVULSION
NATURAL
CHANGE OF
RIVER BEDS
CONTINUA
ADJUNCTION
MOVABLE
FORMATION OF
ISLANDS
COMMIXTION/
CONFUSION
SPECIFICATION
DISCUSSION:
1.
ACCESSION DISCRETA (fruits) the right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything produced thereby (by internal forces)
A.
B.
C.
Natural fruits
Industrial fruits
Civil fruits
DISCUSSION:
A.
NATURAL FRUITS
Art. 442. 1st Paragraph. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals.
Natural Fruits anything that grows within the perimeter of the property independent of human participation; continuous
products of the soil.
Illustration of Spontaneous product of the soil: This is the one hectare land I own, without me, without involvement of
any person, there are plants growing on the land but wako nananom spontaneous products of the soil like bird
droppings. Parehas gud anang mansinitas unsa mana sila nanum diay ka ana? Wala, so its Natural Fruits.
Spontaneous products of the soil. It grew by itself. Why? Because as I have said earlier, the seeds were spread
through the birds or perhaps through bird droppings. Mao may kadaghanang agent, kana mang langgam
B.
Illustration of young xxx animals: Kining anak sa mananap imong gibuhi, the young and other products of
animals. For example, naa kay baboy, nanganak siya, unsa mana iyang piglets? They are fruits. So the young of
animals are fruits natural fruits.
Illustration of other products of animals: Manure/Droppings as fertilizers. These are additions in effect, the young
and other products of animals. Not only limited to the young but also to other products fertilizers. They are all
natural fruits our examples cogon, talahib, piglets and fertilizers.
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
Art. 442. 2nd Paragraph. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor.
Industrial Fruits - That is purposely intended by the owner of the land. There is labor, then you spend money in order to
produce the desired result. There is human participation. This product is possible through cultivation in order to get the
desired result.
C.
Lahi ang industrial fruits. Ang industrial fruits nag-gikan gihapon sa yuta. Look at the buildings sa industrial!
Pagdaro, pagpa-nanum, preserving the harvest.
Humayan, Kama-isan, Kalubi-an
Kung wala gani human participation, then that is a natural fruit.
Isda na makuha sa fishpond. Imu man gipatrabaho ang fishpond. Industrial Fruits. That is purposely intended by you.
Building, planting, sowing
Illustration: So kana imong gi harvest na rice, corn or your banana plantation, Why are they industrial fruits?
o
Because they are purposely cultivated, expenses were incurred. Why man? Because you want to bring
about the intended result. So they are different from natural. In natural, there is no human intervention (wa
ka nag apilapil), but in industrial, basically the act of man with labor who cultivated purposely, and the
participation of man is prominent. (Gituyo gyud nimo ug tanom ang humay, mais or lubi, kay para mao
imong negosyohan).
Industrial because purposely cultivated by the owner or some other person who is authorized by the owner.
CIVIL FRUITS
Art. 442. 3rd Paragraph. Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of
perpetual or life annuities or other similar income.
2.
Interest sa bangko sa imung gi-deposito, class, that is civil fruit.

Rentals
Kaning Natural, Industrial og Civil Fruits, mao unod kini sa Accession Discreta.
SUMMARY: So, Accession Discreta - to you belong the produce as a consequence of ownership. Remember that
Accession is NOT a mode of acquiring ownership. It is the consequence of ownership. If you look at Article 712, NCC,
Accession is not among the list of acquiring ownership that is because Accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership
but merely as a consequence of ownership.
ACCESSION CONTINUA1 the right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything that is incorporated or attached thereto either
naturally or artificially; by external forces (by external forces)
A. Over IMMOVABLES
i.
Industrial
ii.
Natural2
(1) Alluvion: the accretion which lands adjoining the banks of rivers, lakes, creeks or torrents
gradually receive from the effects of the currents of the waters (Art. 457)
1
2
Discussion for Accession Continua, particularly on Natural (Immovables) and over Movables are found after the discussion on Articles 447- 465
Definitions from Jurado
(2) Avulsion: the accretion which takes place whenever the current of a river, lake, creek or torrent
segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate
(Art. 459)
(3) Change of Course of River Beds: takes place when a river bed is abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters (Art. 461)
(4) Formation of Islands: either on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on
navigable or floatable rivers (Art. 464) or non-navigable and non-floatable rivers. (Art. 465)
B. Over MOVABLES
i.
Conjunction or Adjunction: takes place whenever movable things belonging to different owners are united in
such a way that they cannot be separated without injury, thereby forming a single object (Art. 466)
ii.
Commixtion or Confusion: takes place whenever there is a mixture of things solid or liquid belonging to different
owners, the mixture of solids called commixtion, while that of liquids, confusion (Art. 472)
iii.
Specification: takes place whenever a person imparts s new from to materials belonging to another person (Art.
474)
Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and
preservation.
You should not unjustly enrich yourself.

Kamu na nakadawat sa kini-taan, kinahanglan duna sab ikaw obligasyon pagbayad sa tao na maoy nagtanum, nag-gam og
nag-ani para ma-imo.
Based on the Principle of Unjust Enrichment.
Art. 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits.
With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother, although unborn.
SECTION 2. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of
the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.
Connected na cya sa Art. 452.
Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved.
Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials of
another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the
materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any
event, with a right to be indemnified for damages.
OWNERS OF
LAND (O)
(Good Faith)
1. Value of Material
2. Limited Right of Removal
OWNERS OF
LAND (O)
(Bad Faith)
1. Value of Material
2. Absolute Right of Removal
OWNERS OF
MATERIALS (M)
(Good Faith)
W/ DAMAGES
DISCUSSION:
There are two characters involved, the owner of the materials, M in my example and the owner of the land, O in my example.
Now in 447, there is the builder in case of a building, the planter in case of longer duration or perennial plants (i.e., Mango Trees)
or the sower in case of short-duration crops or plants (i.e. Peanuts). They can be collectively called improvements introduced to
the land. When I say improvements, I refer to BPS (Building, planting, sowing).
In 447, the builder, planter or sower is the owner of the land. The situation contemplated in 447 is that the owner of the land,
believing in good faith that he owns the materials, built, planted or sowed in his own land. The owner of the materials is always in
good faith here, no chance of bad faith.
Note: In 447, the OWNER OF THE MATERIALS IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE IN GOOD FAITH otherwise Articles 455 and 449 will apply.
(Rabuya, p. 184)
LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH
How do you characterize? The owner of the materials is in good faith since he does not know that his materials were being used.
The landowner likewise is in good faith since he believed that the materials were his.
Who owns the improvements?

Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with
the materials of another, shall pay their value; xxx
The improvement is appropriated to the landowner. However, the owner of the materials has the right to receive the
value of the materials. The landowner must indemnify him.
This is the principal reason. A principle in accession is that, the accessory follows the principal. The improvement is the
accessory and the land is the principal. Hence the landowner owns the improvements thereon.
Supposing the owner of the materials opted not to receive the money, can he remove his materials?
Art. 447. xxx The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to
the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed.
He can do so but only when there is no injury to the improvement done.
Jurado called this as the LIMITED RIGHT OF REMOVAL. Your right to remove is subject to limitations, it must not destroy the
improvement.
Lets have a scenario and another view at summarizing Landowner in Good Faith3
Scenario 1 : O, believing erroneously that the materials belonged to him constructed a house using the materials owned by M.
Legal Effects :
1. O may appropriate the building by paying the value of the materials (10,000) to avoid unjust enrichment; O becomes the
owner of the building since the accessory follows the principal - the land is the principal and the building is the accessory; or
2. M, the owner of the materials may choose to remove the materials used in the construction, provided no damage or injury is
caused to the improvement (Limited right of Removal)
The owner of the materials may ask for the value of the materials or have the materials removed provided it will not cause
injury to the works constructed or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed. However, necessarily if you
Art 447 was discussed *extensively* (I like how shine and netty summarized Art 447 differently cannot decide, must put both versions in)
remove the materials in the building constructed, or the plants planted or the seeds sown, it will cause damage or injury to
the construction, plantings or works. By the act of removing you are in effect destroying.
Remove the materials used in the construction of the building provided no injury is caused to the improvement but this will
necessarily cause damage to the building. So this provision gives an impossible condition. It would apply only if you are
removing a part of the building which will not cause damage to the building.
There is good faith when the land owner, in constructing the improvement, used the materials of another, believing
erroneously that the materials belong to him.
LANDOWNER IS IN BAD FAITH
The landowner has knowledge that the materials he used were not his.
Art. 447. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a
right to be indemnified for damages.
What are the rights of the owner of the materials when landowner is in bad faith?
1.
2.
3.
ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF REMOVAL according to Jurado or in the textbook, REMOVAL IN ANY EVENT;
RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS;
RIGHT TO THE INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGES;
What sort of damages?

1. Dao Imergente the monetary value of the damage sustained;
2. Lucros Cesante for the unrealized profits;
Lets have a scenario and another view at summarizing Landowner in Bad Faith4
Scenario 2: O acted in bad faith, having knowledge that he doesnt have a right over the materials, then used it in the
construction of the building.
M has the option to either :
1. Let O pay the value of the materials (10,000) plus reparation for damages; or
2. Remove the materials used in the construction, whether or not this would cause damage or injury to the building, plus damages
(Absolute Right of Removal)
What is referred to here is the owner of the materials. If there is bad faith on the part of the Land owner, in effect, the Land
owner does not have the option. The option is with the owner of the materials.
..may remove them in any event this means absolute right of removal. The Owner of the materials may remove the
materials even if it would cause damage to the construction, plantings or works.
There is bad faith when the Land Owner uses the materials, knowing that it belongs to another.
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his
own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or
planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the
land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land
does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case
of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
The builder, planter or sower here is the owner of the materials and he is in good faith.
Following the principle of accession and because it was the builder, planter or sower who caused the incorporation, the options
under Art. 448 are given to the landowner.
Art 447 was discussed *extensively*
OPTIONS OF THE LANDOWNER:
1.
Appropriate the improvement and pay indemnity in accordance with Art. 546 and 548.
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the
thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he may
remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor
in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended.
2.
3.
Oblige the builder or planter to pay the value of the land.

i. But if the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the improvement then he must pay the
reasonable rent.
Oblige the sower to pay the proper rent.
Parties shall agree on the terms of the rent and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms.
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.
The builder, planter or sower here is in bad faith.
Because of the bad faith, all the improvement will be taken away from the builder without the right to indemnity of the same.
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or
that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted
or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.
The following articles apply when the LANDOWNER is in GOOD FAITH and the BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER is in BAD FAITH.
LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH and BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER IS IN BAD FAITH
RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNER

1.
Right of appropriation without need of indemnity plus DAMAGES
2.
Right to demand removal or demolition at the expense of the BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER plus DAMAGES
3.
Payment of the price of land or rent plus DAMAGES
SIR: you cannot COMPEL the person to pay because it is against social justice but he may merely pay
the value of the land
Agreement of the price may be done extra judicially. Only if there is disagreement that you need to
go to court.
RIGHTS OF THE BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER

1. No right EXCEPT reimbursement of necessary expenses for preservation of the land
When is the LANDOWNER in BAD FAITH?

Art. 453. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.
SUMMARY FOR ARTICLES 448 450:
LANDOWNER
(O)
(Good Faith)
OWNERS OF
MATERIALS (M)
BUILDER,
PLANTER, SOWER
(BPS)
(Good Faith)
Article 448:
1. Landowner can appropriate the improvement
2. Landowner can require the builder and planter
to pay the value of land; sower to pay the rent
3. Reasonable rent (Deposit) court to fix
amount
BUILDER,
PLANTER, SOWER
( BPS)
(Bad Faith)
1. Loses what is built, planted or sown

(improvement) without right to indemnity (Art. 449)
2. Can be required to demolish improvement at
his expense (Art. 450)
3. To pay value of the land (Art. 450)
WITH
DAMAGES
ACCESSION NATURAL
FORMS OF ACCESSION NATURAL

1.
2.
3.
4.
Alluvium (Art. 457)

Avulsion (Art.459)
Change of course of rivers (Art. 461 -462)
Formation of Islands (Art. 464- 465)
DISCUSSION:
1.
Alluvium
Art. 457. To the owner of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of waters.
Alluvium (Alluvial soil) is the sediments gradually deposited on the estate fronting the river bank.
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited.
To the owner of land adjoining the river bank belong the alluvium
o
Basis: Accession as a consequence of ownership.
o
Reason: To compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to erosion or the destructive force of the water and danger
from floods; Better position to cultivate
This presupposes that there should be attachment or incorporation of the sediments to the estate fronting the river bank.
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or
lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.
Sir: This provision seems useless as the owner will not own nor lose something.
2.
Avulsion
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it
to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he
removes the same within two years.
For example: X and L own lands both adjoining a river. When a known large portion of Xs land ,not merely sediments gradually
deposited, was transferred to Ls estate, X still owns that portion of the land.
Avulsion, the process whereby the current of a river, creek, or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of
land and transfers it to another estate.
Who is the owner? The ownership is retained by the owner of the land from which it is detached
o
Provided that he removes it within two years. Otherwise, it will belong to the owner of the land to which it is attached.
Distinctions Between Alluvium and Avulsion

Alluvium
1. The accretion is gradual
2. The land (alluvial soil) cannot be identified
3. Belongs to the owner of the property to which the
attachment was made
4. There is merely an attachment
Avulsion
1. It is sudden and abrupt
2. It is identifiable (known)
3. The ownership is retained by the owner of the land
from which it is detached,
Provided that he removes it within two years
4. There is first a detachment followed by attachment
Question: If the land which attached to L belongs to two different owners, how will you measure its ownership?
o
As long as the owner can identify that the said land is owned by him. It should be pro rata if both identified it and there is
no distinction as the topography of the land is the same.
If a portion of the land of X was separated but it is not attached to the land of L but situated near it, ownership still belongs to X
even after the lapse of two years. As Art. 459 does not apply in the absence of attachment.
Art. 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if
the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or
putting them in a safe place.
3.
Uprooted trees: the ownership belongs to the owner of the land which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within
six months.
Claim is sufficient to retain ownership not necessarily to put them away in six months.
But if the owner of the land where it is cast incurred expenses in putting them in a safe place then the owner shall pay his
expenses.
Remember: Even if land is also transferred together with the uprooted trees, there should be a separate discussion. Art. 459 for the
land and Art. 460 for the trees.
o
Claim within six months is sufficient with regards to uprooted trees and no time is provided in the law to remove it
o
Claim is unnecessary as the land is identifiable in avulsion but there should be removal within two years
Change of course of rivers

Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners
whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by
the new bed.
Ex. Where a portion of a lot equal to 3 hectares was now being occupied by a river after it changed course, the owner thereof
may claim an area equal to that lost from the former river bed which has now dried up as compensation.
The rest of the provisions are now modified accordingly by the Water Code, P.D. 1067 notably Section (sic) 58
Article 58.
When a river or stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private lands, the owners of the affected lands
may not compel the government to restore the river to its former bed; nor can they restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former course. The owners of the land thus affected are not entitled to compensation for any
damage sustained thereby. However, the former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the abandoned bed in proportion
to the area lost by each.
The owners of the affected lands may undertake to return the river or stream to its old bed at their own expense; Provided, That a
permit therefor is secured from the Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communication and work pertaining thereto
are commenced within two years from the change in the course of the river or stream.
-
The provision on compensation for the landowner as discussed above was retained in the Water Code, however there is a
new provision.
The owner of the land can now undertake to restore the old river bed at his own expense provided PERMITS are secured from
the DPWH and within two years from the change in the course of the river or stream.
You have no recourse against the State, you cannot compel the Government to restore the river to its former course. You
can do it at your own expense but it is be very expensive.
Take note: river beds are property of the public domain owned by the State, so the State is now the owner of that portion
which is now the river bed but the State will also give up a portion equal to that from the former river bed which it previously
owned as compensation.
Q: What if two landowners are affected?

A: Same solution, both of you will be compensated out of the dried up old river bed equal to the area you lost.
Situation: the area lost by the former landowners is bigger than the area of the old river bed (not very realistic as per Sir due to
crowding of river banks by informal settlers).
Solution: the landowners will get a proportional share out of the dried up river bed.
Illustration: A lost 9 hectares of his land to the river while B lost only 3, ratio therefore is 3:1. The dried-up portion of the old river bed
is only 4 hectares, thus A will get 3 hectares while B gets 1.
4.
Formation of Island
Mostly theoretical, does not happen very often.
Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable
rivers belong to the State.
Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers,
belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle of
the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one margin than
from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
A.
-
Within territorial waters of the Philippines (12 Nautical Miles)

DO NOT INCLUDE the Spratlys (still disputed).
Any island formed within the Philippine internal waters and 12 Nautical Miles from the baseline shall belong to the State.
Islands formed on rivers that are navigable (may be used by vessels for navigation) shall belong to the owner of the land on
the bank of the river closest to the island, if equidistant to both banks on either side then shall be shared by the owners of
both lands. (Sirs discussion actually conflicts with the Codal Provision above).5
Ivars Observation
SECTION 3. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY
3 KINDS OF ACCESSION OF MOVABLE PROPERTIES:
1.
Adjunction/conjunction
2.
Commixtion/confusion
3.
Specification
DISCUSSION:
A.
ADJUNCTION or CONJUNCTION
Two movables belonging to different owners form a common/united object.
Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a
single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
Example:
A is the owner of the wood, B is the owner of the nails. Those are the essentials to produce a table. A, believing in good faith the
nails are his, used them to form the table. Thats now a single object.
Same rule: Accessory follows the principal
Problem: How do you know in the case of adjunction which one of the things is the principal? So establish first which is the
principal
2 WAYS TO ESTABLISH PRINCIPAL THING:

1.
The nails are the accessory and the wood is the principal because the definition in 467 is that:
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has been united
as an ornament, or for its use or perfection.
2.
Once you establish which one is the principal, the finished product is forfeited to the principal because the rule is that
accessory follows the principal
So when both are in good faith, no one is penalized. A now owns the table because he owns the wood or the principal
The nail is the accessory because it was united to the wood for the latters use
The alternative way is that:

Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the
principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of the
greater volume.
Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand their separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal
thing, the owner of the of the former may demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer
some injury.
1st paragraph: GENERAL RULE. no injury either owner can demand separation
2nd paragraph: EXCEPTION.

Example: The diamond on a silver ring
Based on definition, since it is the diamond na gipa pilit, that should be the accessory
There is still GOOD FAITH here
But this time, the diamond or the accessory is much more expensive. You can still demand separation even if there will be
injury.
Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and
shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the damages he may have suffered.
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a right to
choose between the former paying him its value or that the thing belonging to him be separated, even though for this purpose it be
necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases, furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.
a)
A, owner of accessory is in BAD FAITH, B owner of principal in GOOD FAITH

OPTIONS of B (GOOD FAITH)
1.
Appropriate the finished product + entitled to damages

-
2.
b)
B will not pay the value because A shall lose the thing incorporated
Demand the separation even if it will cause injury to the finished product + entitled to damages
A, owner of accessory is in GOOD FAITH, B owner of principal in BAD FAITH

OPTIONS of A (GOOD FAITH)
B.
1.
Appropriate by paying the value of the finished product + entitled to damages
2.
Demand the separation even if it will cause injury to the finished product + entitled to damages
COMMIXTION or CONFUSION
Two or more things belonging to different owners are mixed
Art. 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in the
latter case the things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to him,
bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
COMMIXTION- mixing of solids
CONFUSION- mixing of liquids

Art. 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confuse d, the rights of
the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the preceding article.
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused,
besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed.
Atty As example: Page 361, Jurado
A had a cattle ranch. B, owner of neighboring cattle ranch knowing A was abroad, fraudulently mixed up all his cattle with all of
As cattle. A returned and brought an action against B for recovery of his cattle plus damages. Decide.
Answer: We must apply the rules of commixtion. Since B had acted in bad faith, all of his cattle are now awarded to A plus
damages pursuant to Art. 473.
But in COMMIXTURE, CO-OWNERSHIP results
Example: You mixed somebodys sack of rice with your own rice.
Both are in good faith, co-ownership is the rule. It will be in a right proportional to the part belonging to each
C.
SPECIFICATION
There is only one material which is transformed through the application of labor
Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall
appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.
Example. I used your flour to make bread
The principal is the LABOR, the accessory is the material used
So general rule, accessory follows the principal. I own the bread or finished product. Since its your material, I will pay you
DIFFERENCE between SPECIFICATION and ADJUNCTION
In specification, material undergoes transformation. In Adjunction, the material preserves its nature (like wood remains wood)
RULES
1.
Owner of material in bad faith- forfeited to owner of principal (who will not pay the value) + entitled to damages
2.
Owner of principal in bad faith- Appropriate by paying the value of the finished product + entitled to damages
TITLE III. CO-OWNERSHIP

Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title.
REQUISITES of co-ownership:
1.
Unity of object
2.
Plurality of subject
3.
Recognition of that right by the persons concerned
WHAT GOVERNS CO-OWNERSHIP

In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title.
1.
Primarily governed by CONTRACT
2.
Special legal provisions applicable to co-ownership
3.
In default of the two, Civil Code applicable
In default means it should be in that order
FACTORS CREATING CO-OWNERSHIP

1.
By law
Example: You own a condominium unit. You own the perimeter within your home. Can you drill a hole on your wall to see what
your neighbors are doing? No. Party walls and the roof of the condominium are owned in common
2.
By chance
Example: Accidentally, you found a hidden treasure. You are not the owner of the land. You are a co-owner with respect to the
treasure found by chance (1/2 ownership)
3.
By contract
Example: 3 buyers bought a property contributing equally. They may become co-owners of that property to the extent of 1/3. Its
by agreement
4.
By succession
Example: Accidental, occasioned by death of a person. 5 children (heirs) are co-owners of property left by decedent
5.
By occupation
Example: You and your friends went hunting and shot a wild boar. You are all co-owners since occupation is a mode of acquiring
ownership
Or you gathered firewood, you are co-owners of those.
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
Share in the benefits and charges: proportional to their respective interests
Portions are presumed equal unless there is proof to the contrary
Situation: A owns 50% of the property, B and C own 25% each. A says he will just get 40%of the proceeds instead of 50% benefits
because he pities B and C
Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
So even if A pities the others, its still void. It is said that its contrary to public policy. Absolutely you should get 50%, you
cannot diminish that.
Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended
and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The
purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.
Co-ownership is an express trust; every co-owner is the TRUSTEE of the others. There is fiduciary trust and confidence here
LIMITATIONS
1.
Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended
2.
Co-owner must use the thing in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership
3.
Co-owner cannot prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights
DISTINGUISH CO-OWNERSHIP FROM PARTNERSHIP

Distinctions
Partnership
Co-ownership
As to manner of creation
Requires the existence of a contract
May exist even in the absence of a

contract
As to designation of a member
Partner
Co-owner
As to personality
There is juridical personality
No juridical personality
As to the effect of death
Death of a partner brings about the dissolution of

the partnership
Not dissolved
As to the disposal of shares
A partner has no power of disposal so as to make

the buyer a partner UNLESS agreed upon by all
the other partners
May freely dispose share
As to purpose
Primary purpose is to earn profits
Primary purpose is for the common

enjoyment of the property
(for business)
As to term/duration
Unlimited as to term
Term not to exceed 10 years (may be

extended by a new agreement)
As to the power to transact with third

persons
Mutual representation
No mutual representation
Every partner is an agent of the partnership
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Every co-owner is a trustee, so any one of them can bring an action for ejectment
Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners
of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority as determined in
Article 492.
REPAIRS FOR PRESERVATION: Expenses which if not made will endanger existence of the thing, or diminish its value or
productivity
If there are 5 co-owners, one may make it himself. However if practicable, notify the others. Why? Because the others will
shoulder the expense also. Your act will create liability for them. You must notify them.
So one can unilaterally decide but must notify others
Now the repairs have been made. Should the others contribute?
Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or
right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his
undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the
co-ownership.
If you dont want to pay, you are not totally excused. You should renounce so much of your interest equivalent to value of
expenses and taxes
Example: Building is 30K. Your proportional interest is 10k. The cost of repairs is 6k. Each co-owner will pay 2k. So you will
renounce 2k of your interest since you dont want to pay. Your interest is now 8k.
This is dacion en pago. Thus, there must be consent of the creditors, or in this case, the co-owners if they want to receive
property in lieu of money
This is NOT UNILATERAL. If they do not consent, your debt remains. You cannot consign that in court
ALTERATION
Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though
benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial
to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. (397a)
Example: Converting an agricultural land to one used for warehousing activities

This is an act of ownership, or an act that can only be done by an owner, thus it requires consent of ALL (unlike ejectment and
repairs for preservation which can be done by only one co-owner)
Just like mortgage, a co-owner cannot mortgage the entire property, that is an act of ownership. There must still be consent of
all there
RULES AS TO CONSENT
1. Alteration consent of all
2. Ejectment one
3. Repairs for preservation one
4. Administration and better enjoyment majority
Art. 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners
shall be binding.
There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object
of the co-ownership.
Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property
owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the
appointment of an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the
preceding provision shall apply only to the part owned in common. (398)
Administration and better enjoyment is temporary, unlike alteration which is more or less permanent
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the
effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
So co-owner can mortgage his part but not the entire property, otherwise, that is alteration and everybody must consent
A co-owner can also sell since he shall have full ownership of his part. Though they cannot determine the metes and bounds of
the property, the portion allocated to a co-owner upon partition is the very portion you purchased.
You cannot determine the bounds here because this is co-ownership. If there are boundaries already, thats not co-ownership
anymore. Its already extinguished
If you succeeded to a property, you can alienate that property. However, no partition was made yet. Thus, when the other coowners now partition it, the vendee is the one will participate in the partition, not you anymore since you already sold your
share. Youre not a co-owner anymore
Situation: 3 persons co-own a property. If one wants to enjoy his part, which part of the property should he enjoy? If one
constitutes a usufruct over his share, where should the usufructuary build his house? Which portion?
Thats the problem. This is all theory
Q&A discussion
Why should a contract providing that a co-owner will only get 40% benefits instead of 50% proportional to his share be void, when
what should govern is the contract primarily and not the Civil Code?
A problematic area
Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts or special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this title.
Article 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is provided.
According to Atty. Mayol with emphasis on Art. 484 2nd par.: That the provisions in the civil code, title III in particular shall only
govern in the absence of contract or special provisions, its third priority only. Contract is given superior character.
Q: If you stipulate in the contract contrary to article 485(1 st sentence), meaning the share in the benefits and charges is NOT
proportional, is it void or not?
Sir: Contract still prevails because the first sentence of article 484 is very explicit, it says in default of contract. The NCC
applies only when there is no contract. So contract governs. Its a waiver of right on the part of the co-owner.
Q: But what about the NCC provision which provides waiver is valid UNLESS if it is contrary to LAW, morals, good custom, public
order, public policy? Is it not that the contract referred to in art. 485 refers to the contract of co-ownership itself and the same is a
limitation to the stipulations the parties may provide in the contract?
Sir: Contract still governs even if it is in conflict with art. 485. The law is explicit. In the absence of the first(contract), apply
the second(special provision), in the absence of the second(special provision), apply the third(NCC). Contract is still
superior. Waiver in general is still governed by NCC but not co-ownership. So even if it conflicts with art. 485, apply the
contract still because that is what the law says.(Sirs point is you go back to article 484 where it gives contract superior
character, its what the NCC provides).
To reconcile just to end the discussion, so if its agreement incidental to co-ownership, CONTRACT governs. But if its proportional interest
(benefits and charges), you follow ART. 485, it cannot be subject to agreement. To be uniform, everything should be based on the civil
code all the time. Im confused with co-ownership because of the phrase in default but ordinarily it should be NCC that should be
followed.
Primarily, Civil code prevails in default of contracts or special provisions.
Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title. (392)
GR: contracts contrary to law are void. (Art. 1306)
However, Contracts will prevail over civil code only with issues relating to co-ownership.
Contracts relating to co-ownership will prevail, unless the issue involved be the proportional interest which can never be altered.
Conclusion ni sir:
On issues regarding co-ownership look at the contract if any.
Such contract will not be permitted to stipulate against the proportional interest of the co-owners.
Contract is superior than the provision of law with respect to co-ownership issues.
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing
owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may
be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
the co-ownership
Co-ownership is frowned upon by the law because it is a source of conflict of rights. Precisely, if a co-owner sells his
share/proportional interest to a stranger, a co-owner may redeem. The reason behind this is to minimize the number of co-owners
to prevent further conflict or discourage co-ownership. (Ex. 5 siblings. 1 sibling sells to a stranger, the co-owners remains to be 5.
Redemption from the stranger will lessen co-owners to 4)
No one is compelled to stay in the co-ownership.
A co-owner has the liberty to demand partition at any time.
Take note: The law DISCOURAGES co-ownership but FAVORS partition.
INSTANCES WHEN PARTITION IS NOT PERMITTED:

1.
When the co-owners agreed not to partition the property not exceeding ten years. But the agreement may be extended by a
new agreement.
(Original term in no case shall exceed ten years; renewal should also not exceed ten years)
2.
In case the donor and testator, where they provide in the deed of donation and last will and testament, respectively, not to
partition the property for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.
(such restriction is to ensure that the property will be used for its intended purpose. If there is no such restriction the donee
may resort to selling immediately.)
3.
When it is prohibited by law.

Example: Condominium.
4.
refer to Art. 495. When it would render the property unserviceable for the use for which it was intended.
Example: Car.
Solution: if so/indivisible, refer to article 498.
Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify
the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed.
Atty. M: not necessarily to be sold. Indemnification may occur.
Scenario: 3 co-owners (A, B & C) of a car worth 3 million. They agree that they will give or allotte such car to A. In return, in terms of money
A will give B & C 1M each as their share.
WHEN CO-OWNERSHIP IS TERMINATED:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Partition
Prescription (Property owned in common is claimed by a third person and has gone beyond the equivalent number of years)
Consolidation in favor of one co-owner
Loss or Total destruction
Article 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners
shall be binding.
There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the coownership.
Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in
common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of
an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding
provision shall apply only to the part owned in common.
On the topic Majority in Article 492 for administration and better enjoyment of the co-owned property:
Normally, you entertain in your mind that majority means physical majority or majority in number, which is not the case.
What the provision actually meant was equity majority or financial majority.
To illustrate:
The co-owners are a total of one hundred (100) percent. There is a certain issue to be decided by the co-owners for
administration and better enjoyment of the co-owned property.
Voted Yes:
A1 vote
B1 vote
Total:
2 votes
26 % interest
25% interest
51% combined interest
Voted No:
C1 vote
D1 vote
Total:
2 votes
25 % interest
24% interest
49% combined interest
So by physical majority, there is a tie. But looking into their representation of interests:
A & B combined interest now represents 51 percent of the total ownership as opposed to the 49 percent represented by
C & D. So the governing interest there is the 51 percent which voted for Yes.
So even if A owns the whole 51 percent compared to the 49 percent combined interests of B, C & D, still A would prevail
having the majority interest over the property co-owned for administration and better enjoyment.
Thus controlling interest should govern.
Controlling interest means:

one half (1/2) + one (1), thus 51% Financial interest/ Equity Majority
Reason of the law:

It would certainly be unjust to impose upon the co-owners the will of greater number of co-owners with less interest.
Thus it is contrary to fairness and justice to let those with less interest over the property to determinate how it is to be
administered.
This also happens in partnership, although, physical majority is the first rule and in case of tie, the combined interest of the
partners voting in favor or against a certain issue is resorted. So the financial interest is only subordinate.
Here in co-ownership, Financial Interest is always the basis. There is no physical majority.
TITLE VI: USUFRUCT

USUFRUCT IN GENERAL
Article 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the
title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
This means you are entitled to use the thing held in usufruct and to enjoy the fruits plus you preserve the form and
substance of the thing because a usufruct is only temporary.
The definition of usufruct provided by law is already correct and concise but conceptually De Boyes definition is better:
It is a real right, temporary in nature which gives a person the right to use all the property of another in
accordance with normal use or exploitation, with the obligation of returning the same or its appraised value.
It is still a real right even if the thing held in usufruct is a personal property.
It is also temporary in nature and if it is perpetual, then it may not be a usufruct.
Paras has a formula in his book:

Full ownership usufruct = naked ownership
Or otherwise
Naked ownership + usufruct = full ownership
Article 563. Usufruct is constituted by law, by the will of private persons expressed in acts inter vivos or in a last will and testament, and by
prescription.
HOW USUFRUCT IS CONSTITUTED:
1.
BY LAW
For example, your minor child who owns things provided not exceeding 50,000 pesos in value, by law you are authorized
to use it. So ang law nagbuot.
2.
BY THE WILL OF THE PRIVATE PERSONS:

a. In acts inter vivos
b. In a last will and testament
If by private persons, it could be done by donation or mortis causa.
So one way is by last will and testament. You can give the usufruct to A and the naked ownership to B since they are not
the same.
3.
BY PRESCRIPTION the law also provides for this
Article 564. Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits of the thing, in favor of one more persons, simultaneously or
successively, and in every case from or to a certain day, purely or conditionally. It may also be constituted on a right, provided it is not
strictly personal or intransmissible.
Article 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those provided in the title constituting the usufruct; in default of such title,
or in case it is deficient, the provisions contained in the two following Chapters shall be observed.
WHAT GOVERNS USUFRUCT?

Its the same as what governs ownership.
1.
TITLE CONSTITUTING THE USUFRUCTThis can be donation or last will and testament.
2.
CIVIL CODE - In default or deficiency of title
The comment in Paras, IN CASE OF CONFLICT, on the matter of rights and obligations, which will govern?
For example in his will, he provided that you are the usufructuary of a parcel of land, additionally, you are authorized to dispose
the same.
So it is not consistent with usufruct because you are not preserving but disposing.
So the rule is, (as provided by Paras):

RULES GOVERNING A USUFRUCT:
1.
First, the AGREEMENT by the parties or the TITLE giving the usufruct (thus, by agreement, the usufructuary may be allowed to
alienate the very thing held in usufruct, although generally, this alienation is not allowed by the codal provisions).
2.
Second, in case of deficiency, apply the CIVIL CODE.
RULE IN CASE OF CONFLICT:

In case of conflict between the rights granted a usufructuary by virtue of a will, and codal provisions, the former, unless repugnant to the
mandatory provisions of the Civil Code, should prevail. (Fabie vs. Gutierrez David, 75 Phil. 536).
The former (the will) shall prevail, meaning the will, unless it is clearly repugnant to the provisions of the Civil Code.
So it is settled. It is the will not the Civil Code that must be followed in case of conflict because under Article 565, primarily usufruct
is governed by the title constituting it. We cannot question that. So the Civil Code is only secondary or in default. So this is how to
reconcile it and the authority it is based.
So this means that there will be circumstances that the usufructuary may be allowed to alienate the thing held in usufruct, not the
just the fruits and not just the use, if authorized by the title constituting the usufruct.
This is one of the exceptions as regards usufruct same as Articles 574 and 575. (to be discussed below)
RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY

Article 566. The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. With respect to hidden
treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall be considered a stranger.
So a usufructuary is entitled to all the fruits:
1.
2.
3.
Natural Fruits
Civil Fruits
Industrial Fruits
Consider this as opposed to the rule in Article 441.

Article 441. To the owner belongs:
(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits.
To the owner belongs the natural, industrial and civil fruits. This is provided in Article 441.
So if you read this, compared to a usufructuary, he is not the owner but the one who uses the property and is entitled to the
natural, industrial and civil fruits.
TO RECONCILE the following provisions:
The natural, industrial and civil fruits shall belong to:
General Rule: OWNER
Exceptions:
1.
In case of Usufruct the usufructuary shall be entitled to all the fruits
2.
Antichretic CreditorIn antichresis, the law provides that the fruits shall accrue to the antichretic creditor but he shall apply them to
the obligation: first the interest, second, the principal obligation.
So therefore, the fruits are held by the antichretic creditor but applied as payment of the obligation of the
owner-debtor.
3.
In a contract of lease
The lessee is entitled to the fruits of the thing leased, but the lessor will receive the rents or the civil fruits.
4.
Possessor in good faith- entitled to the fruits
So it is not all the time that the owner is entitled to the fruits.
Therefore Article 441 is the general rule and those mentioned are the exceptions.
HIDDEN TREASURE
For instance, incidentally, you got lucky and found a hidden treasure on the land held in usufruct.
Article 556. (Second Sentence)
With respect to hidden treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall be considered a stranger.
In case of hidden treasure, you are considered as a stranger, not the owner.
This means you are not entitled as an owner because you are not the owner but you are entitled as a finder if only you
are the finder that is the meaning of stranger.
So if someone finds a hidden treasure on the land you are holding as a usufructuary, it shall belong to the naked owner.
But if you yourself found the hidden treasure, you are entitled as a finder, which is one half.
So if you are the usufructuary, you are to enjoy the surface and on top of the surface of the land even the fruits, but not
the subsurface, such as in case of hidden treasure.
In case of MINERALS, these naturally do not grow on the surface but are found below. What happens if they are found
on the property and in commercial quantity?
o
So to determine if you are entitled to the minerals in your capacity as usufructuary, you have to determine first if
the minerals are considered fruits. This is not actually provided in the code. It is not also a hidden treasure but
minerals.
o
However, minerals are part of the capital and not fruits. In effect, they are part of the land and belong to the
naked owner. But this is not specifically provided for in the code, only the hidden treasure.
This is in favor of the usufructuary
Article 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct begins, belong to the usufructuary.
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the owner.
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses incurred;
but the owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the growing fruits, the ordinary expenses
of cultivation, for seed, and other similar expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third persons, acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of the
usufruct.
So the usufruct begins on June 20, 2015. You already become the usufructuary. Then you will have to comply with the
requirements (discussed below) and then after, entry of the property happens.
For example:
The land has 10 fruit bearing trees, after one month, they will be due for harvest. These are considered as pending
fruits, opposite to that are the harvested fruits.
These are now owned by the usufructuary from the beginning of the usufruct. And the expenses applied in planting and
cultivating are non-reimbursable.
Natural or Industrial fruits (e.g. Mango) belongs to the usufructuary growing at the time the usufruct begins. It refers to growing fruits or
pending fruits at the time of the beginning of the usufruct.
How about the naked owners expenses or amount spent for cultivation?
Ans: The usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses incurred... (see: Art.
567 third paragraph). Therefore, no reimbursement for the expenses incurred by the naked owner.
How about the rights of a third person (e.g the naked owner avails of the services of a third person for cultivation), is he entitled to
compensation?
Ans: Yes. The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third persons, acquired either at the beginning or at the
termination of the usufruct (see: Art. 567 last paragraph). The usufructuary cannot complain in case the third person demands
payment for the services rendered after all the usufructuary has been benefited.
When the usufruct terminates, say for example the usufruct terminates on June 20, 2015, the naked owner owns the pending fruits at
the time the usufruct ends (Art. 567 second paragraph).
EXPENSES
RULES:
1.
At the time the usufruct BEGINS

-The USUFRUCTUARY owns the fruits and has no obligation to reimburse the naked owner.
2.
At the time the usufruct TERMINATES

-The OWNER of the land owns the fruits and has the obligation to reimburse from the proceeds of the growing fruits, the
ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar expenses incurred by the usufructuary (overall lugi jd ang
naked owner ky mag reimburse mn ka sa gigastohan sa usufructuary).
Scenario:
Expenses sa Usufructuary = 250, 000
Upon selling it, the usufructuary only obtained the amount of 200,000, barato ra ang pagpalit, lugi ang usufructuary kay ang
expenses nya ky 250, 000, knsa mn mu bayad sa 50, 000? Naked owner shall pay the amount of 50, 000. The law thus identifies
where the owner will get the payment for reimbursement.
Art. 567 second paragraph provides : . but the owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct, from the
proceeds of the growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar expenses incurred by the
usufructuary. (emphasis supplied)
In short class kutob ra sa proceeds ang liability sa naked owner, dra ra kutob class sa proceeds ra. Niingun ang balaod from the
proceeds of the growing fruits (halin) kutob rka dra.
Article 572. The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a
gratuitous title; but all the contracts he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the usufruct, saving
leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as subsisting during the agricultural year.
-
You can lease the property held in usufruct because the amount that the usufructuary will receive in the form of rents arising from
the contract of lease are still considered fruits civil fruits. Maka lease japun ka although you are not the owner.
Assuming class ang lease contract mu end on June 30, 2015. Ang usufructuary rights sa usufruct mu end ika June 20, 2015. Mu end
nlng ang usufruct naa gihapon ang lease contract ky 10 days from June 20, 2015 pmn mu end ang lease. Naay agreement ang
lessor (usufructuary) og ang lessee na 15,000 per month ang bayad sa rentals. Entitled pa ba ang usufructuary sa rentals for the
month of June considering the fact that mu end na iyang usufructuary rights ika June 20, 201? To what extent entitled ang lessorusufructuary?
Ans: Portion ra sa 15, 000. Lessor-Usufructuary is entitled to the extent of 2/3 of 15, 000 rentals. Although contract of lease is
indivisible but the rights of the usufructuary, as a lessor, is coterminous with his rights as a usufructuary.
-
Also, the law also provides that civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily (art. 569) so ma pro-rate nmo class ky adlaw-adlaw
mana ang civil fruits, so kung June 20 ra ang imo rights so makuha ra nmo ang 2/3 sa 15,000 ky they are deemed to accrue
daily.
-
Another reason class - If the usufructuary has leased the property, and the usufruct should expire before the termination of
the lease, he or his heirs or successors shall receive only a proportionate share of the rent. (Art. 568)
How about the lease contract? When it will end? June 20, 2015 or June 30, 2015?
Ans: but all the contracts he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the usufruct MANDATORY
xa class. Thus, even if the title provides for it, it cannot be done because it is openly contrary to a mandatory provision of the Civil
Code.
Contracts you have entered into pursuant to your usufructuary rights are COTERMINOUS with your right as usufructuary.
Exceptions: leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as subsisting during the agricultural year. (Art. 572).
-Necessarily ma out jd ang lessee ky ang ang usufructuary nag nagpa.abang wla nay katungod og pagpangabang.
GENERAL RULE with the obligation of preserving the form and substance
EXCEPTION: unless the title containing the usufruct or the law provides otherwise
Usufructuary has the obligation to preserve the form and substance. If it is a ricefield, maintain it as a ricefield, do not alter it.
o
But the exception is that he can alienate it. Why? Because it is provided in the title containing the usufruct that the
usufructuary has the right to dispose.
How do you justify? The law that governs is the title which is the will executed by the decedent. The Civil Code is
only secondary. In case of conflict, the former making the will shall prevail as long as it is not repugnant to the
mandatory provisions of this Code.
Classification of Usufruct as to the QUALITY or KIND of OBJECTS Involved: 6

(a) Usufruct over RIGHTS
- the right must not be strictly personal or intransmissible in character, hence, the right to receive present or future support
cannot be the object of a usufruct. A usufruct over a real right is also by itself a real right
(b) Usufruct over THINGS
1. NORMAL (or perfect or regular)
- this involves non-consumable things where the form and substance are preserved
2. ABNORMAL (or imperfect or IRREGULAR)
-Examples: Usufruct over consumable property, like vinegar or money. This is also called quasi-usufruct;
-usufruct over non-consumable things that gradually deteriorate by use. Example: the usufruct over furniture or
over an automobile
-the usufruct over sterile or unproductive animals (See Art. 591 which provides that as to effects, a usufruct on
sterile animals is to be considered a usufruct over consumable or fungible things
IRREGULAR USUFRUCT (from the discussion)

There is a departure from the usual obligation of the usufructuary. We are talking about the object of the usufruct which will gradually
deteriorate from the usual wear and tear.
A.
For NON-CONSUMABLE THINGS:
Art. 573. Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without being consumed, gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the
usufructuary shall have the right to make use thereof in accordance with the purpose for which they are intended, and shall not be obliged
to return them at the termination of the usufruct except in their condition at that time; but he shall be obliged to indemnify the owner for any
deterioration they may have suffered by reason of his fraud or negligence.
Example: Motorcycle, Chair these things will deteriorate with time as the result of the normal exploitatation/use of these things.
Usufructuary will NOT be charged for the normal wear and tear if there is no fraud or negligence.
From the Book of Paras to clarify (page 578 pdf)
B.
For CONSUMABLE THINGS:
Art. 574. Whenever the usufruct includes things which cannot be used without being consumed, the usufructuary shall have the right to
make use of them under the obligation of paying their appraised value at the termination of the usufruct, if they were appraised when
delivered. In case they were not appraised, he shall have the right to return at the same quantity and quality, or pay their current price at
the time the usufruct ceases.
Example: Bread.
OBJECT OF USUFRUCT
Q: So can there be a usufruct over money?
A: Yes. Alunan vs Veloso. You cannot preserve it; cannot be used without being consumed. But because of university of usufruct, real
personal, even right, as long as not very personal, mao ila na giapil ang kwarta.
Q: So unsay buhaton sa kwarta?
A: Because you can determine how much the money was when you borrowed it, ma appraised na siya. Therefore imo ulian. If wala
ma appraise ang butang, you look at kind or quality or its equivalent na lang.
Ex: Marshmallow
-so the same kind and quality na lang sa marshmallow. But ingkaso dili makuha ang quality and quantity, just the value sa butang.
Kana consumable.
ALIENATION- In case of Conflict Between Title constituting the Usufruct and the Civil Code
GR: The TITLE constituting the usufruct prevails
EXCEPT: If it is repugnant to the mandatory provisions of the Civil Code
-Kanang title constituting the usufruct is superior to the civil code because for example the will provides that Juan Dela Cruz shall be
the usufructuary of this property, among others, he shall have the right to alienate the above mentioned property. Can there be a
usufruct? The prohibition, the nature and the definition cannot overrule the title constituting the usufruct which is the will. So in case of
conflict between the will and the civil code, the will prevails.
ARTICLE 575. The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs may make use of the dead trunks, and even of those cut off or uprooted
by accident, under the obligation to replace them with new plants. (483a)
ARTICLE 576. If in consequence of a calamity or extraordinary event, the trees or shrubs shall have disappeared in such considerable
number that it would not be possible or it would be too burdensome to replace them, the usufructuary may leave the dead, fallen or
uprooted trunks at the disposal of the owner, and demand that the latter remove them and clear the land. (484a)
ARTICLE 577. The usufructuary of woodland may enjoy all the benefits which it may produce according to its nature.
If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the usufructuary may do such ordinary cutting or felling as the owner was
in the habit of doing, and in default of this, he may do so in accordance with the custom of the place, as to the manner, amount and
season.
In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to prejudice the preservation of the land.
In nurseries, the usufructuary may make the necessary thinnings in order that the remaining trees may properly grow.
With the exception of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the usufructuary cannot cut down trees unless it be to restore or
improve some of the things in usufruct, and in such case he shall first inform the owner of the necessity for the work. (485)
SPECIAL USUFRUCT
-these are special usufruct. But panagsa ra kaayu na. Forest product, that really belongs to the State. Kinahanglan ka og license.
Concessionaire ka.
ARTICLE 578. The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or a real right, or any movable property, has the right to bring the
action and to oblige the owner thereof to give him the authority for this purpose and to furnish him whatever proof he may have. If in
consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires the thing claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion
remaining with the owner. (486)
- Ikaw usufructuary, ikaw na hassle, nay niclaim, nya musucceed wa ka na. So interesado gyud ka na dili makailog ana nga yutaa kay
ikaw man ang benefited ana. So mangayo ka Special Power Of Attorney, dili ka tag iya, pero interesado ka, ikaw man nag pahimos.
Moreover, unsa man ika prove nimu na ikaw ang owner, makapangayo ka ana sa naked owner kay apektado ka ana. Di ka
magparayg, oy naked owner na disturb ko dinhi, lihok diha, dili, ikaw ang maningkamot.
o
It shall be instituted in the name of the real party in interest. The real party in interest is the owner of course.
ARTICLE 579. The usufructuary may make on the property held in usufruct such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as
he may deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or substance; but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He may,
however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to do so without damage to the property. (487)
Q: Can you introduce improvements?

A: Yes. Butang ba nimu fountain diha. Fine. Decorative items. Pero dili ka ilisan sa gasto ana ha. Dili man na necessary expenses, its
not necessary for the preservation. Luxury ra man ana. You can remove it if dili maka damage sa property you can do that. But NO
reimbursement.
ARTICLE 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have made on the property against any damage to the same.
(488)
-ioffset ra nimu
OBLIGATIONS OF USUFRUCTUARY
ARTICLE 583. The usufructuary, before entering upon the enjoyment of the property, is obliged:
(1) To make, after notice to the owner or his legitimate representative, an INVENTORY of all the property, which shall contain an
appraisal of the movables and a description of the condition of the immovables;
(2) To give SECURITY, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon him in accordance with this Chapter. (491)
BEFORE ENTRY:
-dili ka pwde magpaso lang ka didto.
1.
INVENTORY
- I will notify the naked owner or the representative na musud ka. Imo paadtuon, you have to make inventory of the movables and the
description of the condition of the immovable. You have to invite them so that there will be no omission sa property.
Q: Kung ikaw lang pwede ra ba ka musud?
A: Pwede man. Directory ra man na. Its for their protection. If dili gani sila muadto, there is a presumption na husto na ang inventory. It
will be the obligation of the owner to prove na there is omission. Sala man na ninyo, gipaadto mo wala mo.
o
When Inventory is NOT Required: 2 SITUATIONS

A. WAIVER
-right man na sa owner.
B. NO ONE IS HURT THEREBY
ARTICLE 585. The usufructuary, whatever may be the title of the usufruct, may be excused from the obligation of making
an inventory or of giving security, when no one will be injured thereby.
-ex: monthly pension.
-Ako trabaho ang pagdawat ra, no one is hurt. So therefore, unsa man imo inventory diha. Usufruct may be property or
right.
2.
SECURITY OR BOND
-to answer for damages sustained by the property in usufruct in case of negligence or fraud of the usufructuary.
-If ordinary wear and tear, di man ka pabayron ana. Dili ka accountable.
o
FORMS OF SECURITY
-money, pledge your property or mortgage.
When Security NOT Required: 4 SITUATIONS

ARTICLE 584. The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not apply to the donor who has reserved the usufruct of the
property donated, or to the parents who are usufructuaries of their childrens property, except when the parents contract a
second marriage. (492a)
A. DONOR WHO HAS RESERVED THE USUFRUCT OF THE PROPERTY DONATED
-naghimu deed of donation in due form. Among others, you provided in your contract that the donor shall continue in
possession of the thing donated as a usufructuary for 10 years. I reserved the right to the usufructuary of my own
property. Mode of acquiring property is by donation. You are the owner but I retained the right to use. Imo na na, kung
mamatay man ko before 10 years, ma extinguish man ng usufructuary.
-Donee- Naked Owner; Donor-Usufructuary
-kaingrato gud nimu kung mangayo pa kag bond/security anang butanga gihatag ra man na sa imu. You have the
nerve!
B. PARENTAL USUFRUCT
GR: To the parents who are usufructuaries of their childrens property
EXCEPT: when the parents contract a second marriage
-anak na minor wala mulapas sa 50k ang value sa property, giconfer sa balaod ang usufruct sa property sa
parents. If magminyo ka usab, tapos na.
C. CAUCION JURATORIA
ARTICLE 587. If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by virtue of a promise under oath, the delivery of the
furniture necessary for his use, and that he and his family be allowed to live in a house included in the usufruct, the
court may grant this petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.
The same rule shall be observed with respect to implements, tools and other movable property necessary for an
industry or vocation in which he is engaged.
If the owner does not wish that certain articles be sold because of their artistic worth or because they have a
sentimental value, he may demand their delivery to him upon his giving security for the payment of the legal interest on
their appraised value. (495)
-ikaw pobre ka wala kay ikahatag na pondo. You file a petition in court. You will be given the property in usufruct
without the necessary bond/security.
Causion Juratoria (from Rabuya)

-refers to the promise under oath made in court by the usufructuary who has not given security for the purpose of
acquiring the use of the following: 1. Furniture necessary for his use; 2. Dwelling house; or 3. Implements, tools and
other movable property necessary for an industry or vocation in which he is engaged.
D. NO ONE IS INJURED THEREBY
- ex: pension
Q: Can you not exercise your right as a usufructuary in the absence of bond or security?
A: That is not the case. The bond may be given not necessarily before. It may be given some other time. Naniguro lang ka
ingkaso naa koy kadaot na buhaton. Merely directory ra man ni.
-end-
CREDITS TO: ABEJO, GEONZON, GARCIA E., GAVIOLA, ENRIQUEZ, ITAO, PAPA, ERICSON, TAMAYO, CANOY, SALCEDO, GILLAMAC,
DEVERATURDA, CUADO, LICUP

CIVIL Review PROPERTY Revised

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CIVIL Review PROPERTY Revised

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 PROPERTY: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness - Aristotle

In UNION, There is STRENGTH

TITLE I. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

Article 415. The following are immovable property:

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land

Article 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Pero mubo ra kayo pagkasulti diha ba. So actually:

Imposed by the STATE

Police Power, Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation

Imposed by CONTRACT or WILL

Last will and testament, contracts

Imposed by the OWNER HIMSELF

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Imposed by the Others

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

If the finder is the OWNER

NOT by CHANCE NOT entitled to any share

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

FRUITS (ART 442)

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Interest sa bangko sa imung gi-deposito, class, that is civil fruit.

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

You should not unjustly enrich yourself.

SECTION 2. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Connected na cya sa Art. 452.

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH

Who owns the improvements?

He can do so but only when there is no injury to the improvement done.

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

LANDOWNER IS IN BAD FAITH

What sort of damages?

Art 447 was discussed *extensively*

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Oblige the builder or planter to pay the value of the land.

The builder, planter or sower here is in bad faith.

LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH and BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER IS IN BAD FAITH

RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNER

RIGHTS OF THE BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER

When is the LANDOWNER in BAD FAITH?

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

1. Loses what is built, planted or sown

FORMS OF ACCESSION NATURAL

Alluvium (Art. 457)

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Distinctions Between Alluvium and Avulsion

Change of course of rivers

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Q: What if two landowners are affected?

Within territorial waters of the Philippines (12 Nautical Miles)

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

Same rule: Accessory follows the principal

2 WAYS TO ESTABLISH PRINCIPAL THING:

The alternative way is that:

2nd paragraph: EXCEPTION.

There is still GOOD FAITH here

Batch 2015-2016[CIVIL LAW REVIEW from the discussion of ATTY. MAYOL]

A, owner of accessory is in BAD FAITH, B owner of principal in GOOD FAITH

Appropriate the finished product + entitled to damages

A, owner of accessory is in GOOD FAITH, B owner of principal in BAD FAITH

Appropriate by paying the value of the finished product + entitled to damages

Art 447 was discussed extensively