LESSONS 12 to 14: Possession

77

Pendot v. CA, 172

SCRA 20
[squatters]

78

Del Rosa v. Carlos,

414 SCRA 226
[forcible entry]

79

Duran v. IAC, 128

SCRA 489
[innocent third
persons]
Maneclang v.
Baun, 208 SCRA
179 [filing of
case]

80

81
82

83

84
85
86

Buayan Cattle v.
Quintillan, 128
SCRA 270 [
Acebedo v.
Abesamis, 217
SCRA 186 [heirs]
Llobrera v.
Fernandez, 488
SCRA 509
[tolerance]
Perez v. Mendoza,
65 SCRA 480
[prior possession]
Masallo v. Cesar,
39 Phil 134
[wrongful seizure]
Aznar v.
Yapdiangco, 13
SCRA 486
[irrevindicability]

1.) Status as pure and simple Squatter: having entered the premises without any colorable title and/or
having occupied the premises without knowledge and permission 2.) Persons guilty of illegal entry
cannot invoke the benefits of Commonwealth Act Nos. 20 and 539 (exproriation by gov't of large estates
to be sold at cost to bonafide tenants or occupants) as its purpose should benefit only lawful tenants or
occupants
1.) Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession. 2.) Forcible entry involves only questions of
physical or material possession (possession de facto) and not juridical possession (possession de jure)
nor ownership of the property.

Since good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor
rests the burden of proof, it was incumbent upon the administrator to establish such proof. However,
Article 528 of the Civil Code provides that: Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character
except in the case and from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that
he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. The filing of a case alleging bad faith on the part of a
vendee gives cause for cessation of good faith. Therefore, upon the filing of the Answer, the City of
Dagupan became a possessor in bad faith because from that moment, it became aware that it
possesses the thing improperly and wrongfully.
Usurpation is not a valid method of acquiring possession. By virtue of Art. 536 , De Las Marias should
have sought the aid of the court if he believed that he has a right to deprive Buayan Cattle of its
property, not take it by force which he has done in this case.
Heirs acquire possession upon the death of the decedent. In accordance with NCC 533 and NCC 493,
heirs are allowed to dispose of their ideal share in a property under administration. The possession of
hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption. The sale by the heirs was
valid as they have valid possession and was able to get the approval of the court for the sale.

(1) Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true
owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property (Art. 433). (2) In case of
conflicting claims of possession, the present possessor is to be preferred (Art. 538).
A plaintiff in an action for ejectment cannot succeed if it is show that the defendant has prior lawful
possession
General Rule of Irrevindicability (Art 559) Possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title. No further proof is necessary. HOWEVER, Art. 559 establishes two exceptions to the
general rule of irrevindicability, to wit: when the owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully
deprived thereof. If third person acquires property in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. Hence, if the owner has lost the thing, or if
he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or
robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
robber.