LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Art. 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. (333)
PROPERTY
As an object, is that which is, or may be appropriated
Under the CC, thing and property are used synonymously
technically though, thing is of broader scope than property
(PROPERTY IS THE SPECIE WHILE THING IS THE GENUS)
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 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
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
Page 1 of 123
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. (334a)
CLASSIFICATION OF REAL PROPERTY
1. Real property by nature
2. Real property by incorporation
3. Real property by destination or purpose
4. Real property by analogy
CASE DIGESTS: IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
1 LOPEZ V. OROSA AND PLAZA THEATRE
103 SCRA 98
FACTS:
1. Lopez was engaged in business under the name Lopez-Castelo
Sawmill.
2. Orosa, who lived in the same province as Lopez, one day
approached Lopez and invited the latter to make an investment in
the theatre business.
3. Orosa, his family and close friends apparently were forming a
corporation named Plaza Theatre.
4. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest. Nonetheless, there
was an oral agreement between Lopez and Orosa that Lopez
would be supplying the lumber for the construction of the theatre.
The terms were the following: one, Orosa would be personally
liable for any account that the said construction would incur; two,
payment would be by demand and not by cash on delivery.
5. Pursuant to the agreement, Lopez delivered the lumber for the
construction. Lopez was only paid one-third of the total cost.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
6. The land on which the building has been erected was previously
owned by Orosa, which was later on purchased by the
corporation.
7. Due to the incessant demands of Lopez, the corporation
mortgaged its properties.
8. On an earlier relevant date, the corporation obtained a loan with
Luzon Surety Company as surety and in turn, the corporation
executed a mortgage over the land and building. In the
registration of the land under Act 496, such mortgage wasnt
revealed.
9. Also due to the demands of Lopez, Orosa issued a deed of
assignment over his shares of stock in the corporation.
10. As there was still an unpaid balance, Lopez filed a case against
Orosa and Plaza theatre. He asked that Orosa and Plaza theatre
be held liable solidarily for the unpaid balance; and in case
defendants failed to pay, the land and building should be sold in
public auction with the proceeds to be applied to the balance; or
that the shares of stock be sold in public auction. Lopez also had
lis pendens be annotated in the OCT.
11. The trial court decided that there was joint liability between
defendants and that the materialmans lien was only confined to
the building.
ISSUES:
W/N the materialmens lien for the value of the materials used in the
construction of the building attaches to said structure alone and doesnt
extend to the land on which the building is adhered to?
HELD:
The contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of materials
used for the construction and repair of a building is also extended to land
on which the building was constructed is without merit. For while it is true
that generally, real estate connotes the land and the building constructed
thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building in the enumeration
of what may constitute real properties could only mean one thingthat a
building is by itself an immovable property. Moreover, in the absence of
any specific provision to the contrary, a building is an immovable property
irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is
adhered to belong to the same owner.
Appelant invoked Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides
With respect to determinate real property and real rights of the debtor,
the following are preferred: xxx Credits for reflection, not entered or
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 2 of 123
recorded, and only with respect to other credits different from those
mentioned in four next preceding paragraphs.
Close examination of the abovementioned provision reveals that the law
gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to
the real estate upon which the refectionary or work was made. This being
so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches
merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which
the obligation was incurred. Therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the
unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building
attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the obligors.
2 ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA,
ET. AL
103 SCRA 972
FACTS:
Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from
Philippine Realty Corporation. To be able to purchase on credit rice from
NARIC, they filed a surety bond subscribed by petitioner and therefor, they
executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the house in favor of the surety
company. The spouses didnt own yet the land on which the house was
constructed on at the time of the undertaking. After being able to
purchase the land, to be able to secure payment for indebtedness, the
spouses executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya.
The spouses were not able to satisfy obligation with NARIC, petitioner was
compelled to pay. The spouses werent able to pay the surety company
despite demands and thus, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage.
It later learned of the real estate mortgage over the house and lot secured
by the spouses. This prompted the company to file an action against the
spouses. Also, Iya filed another civil action against the spouses, asserting
that she has a better right over the property. The trial court heard the two
cases jointly and it held that the surety company had a preferred right over
the building as since when the chattel mortgage was secured, the land
wasnt owned yet by the spouses making the building then a chattel and
not a real property.
HELD:
A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the
fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs to another. To hold it
the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would result in
confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made
dependent on ownership of the land, would create a situation where a

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
permanent fixture changes its nature or character as the ownership of the
land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties may be the
only subjects of a chattel mortgage, the execution of the chattel mortgage
covering said building is null and void.
3 BICERRA V. TENEZZA
6 SCRA 648
FACTS:
Bicerras were the owners of a house built on a lot owned by them and
situated in the municipality of Lagangilang. Tenezza forcibly demolished
the house, asserting that they are the rightful owners of the land. Failure
to restore the house and to deliver the materials by the defendants,
plaintiffs were forced to file an action against them for damages as well as
praying that the court hold them as the proper owners of the house.
The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
W/N house demolished is still considered an immovable property?
HELD:
A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to
the soil on which it is built. The classification holds true regardless of the
fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to another owner.
But once the house is demolished, it ceases to exist as such and the hence
its character as immovable likewise ceases.
4 LEUNG YEE V. F.L STRONG MACHINERY CO.AND
WILLIAMSON
37 SCRA 644
FACTS:
1. First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning
machinery from the machinery company and this was secured by
a chattel mortgage on the machinery and the building to which it
was installed. Upon failure to pay, the chattel mortgage was
foreclosed, the building and machinery sold in public auction and
bought by the machinery company.
2. Days after, the Compania Agricola Filipina executed a deed of sale
over the land to which the building stood in favor of the machinery
company. This was done to cure any defects that may arise in the
machinery companys ownership of the building.
3. Second mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattel
mortgage was excecuted, Compania executed a real estate
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 3 of 123
mortgage over the building in favor of Leung Yee, distinct and
separate from the land. This is to secure payment for its
indebtedness for the construction of the building. Upon failure to
pay, the mortgage was foreclosed.
4. The machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be
declared the rightful owner of the building. The trial court held
that it was the machinery company which was the rightful owner
as it had its title before the building was registered prior to the
date of registry of Leung Yees certificate.
HELD:
The building in which the machinery was installed was real property, and
the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and
apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed the character as
real property.
It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry
of the instrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and
the machinery installed therein, nor the annotation in the registry of the
sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the
building is concerned.
*LANDMARK CASE
5 STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK V. JARAMILLO
44 SCRA 630
FACTS:
De la Rosa was the lessee of a piece of land, on which a house she owns
was built. She executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the petitioner
purporting the leasehold interest in the land and the ownership of house.
After such, the petitioner moved for its registration with the Register of
Deeds, for the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record
of chattel mortgages. After examination, the respondent was in the
opinion that the properties were not subjects of a chattel mortgage.
HELD:
Position taken by the respondent is untenable. His duties are mainly
ministerial only in nature and no law confers upon him any judicial or
quasi-judicial power. Generally, he should accept the qualification of the
property adopted by the person who presents the instrument for
registration and should place the instrument on record, upon payment of
the proper fee, leaving the effects of registration to be determined by the
court if such question should arise for legal determination.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
The Civil Code supplies no absolute criterion in discriminating between real
property and personal property for purposes of the application of the
Chattel Mortgage Law. The articles state general doctrines, nonetheless, it
must not be forgotten that under given conditions, property may have
character different from that imputed to it in the said articles. It is
undeniable that the parties in a contract may by agreement treat as
personal property that which by nature would be real property.
6 PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA
121 SCRA 331
FACTS:
Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of
PNB. Due to his failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land
was sold in a public auction to which PNB was the highest bidder.
On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of the land, it
secured a permit for the construction of a warehouse.fop
A deed of sale was executed between PNB and Punsalan. This contract was
amended to include the warehouse and the improvement thereon. By
virtue of these instruments, respondent Lacsamana secured title over the
property in her name.
Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his
allegations was that the bank did not own the building and thus, it should
not be included in the said deed.
Petitioners complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court
held that the action being filed in actuality by petitioner is a real action
involving his right over a real property.
HELD:
Warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real
property. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building
treated separately from the land on which it is stood is immovable property
and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it
separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its
character as immovable property.
7 PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS
153 SCRA 390
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 4 of 123
FACTS:
Spouses Magcale secured a loan from Prudential Bank. To secure
payment, they executed a real estate mortgage over a residential building.
The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and the information
about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the
building stood. After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another
from the same bank. To secure payment, another real estate mortgage
was executed over the same properties.
The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over
the land which was later on mortgaged to the bank.
The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially
foreclosed and sold in public auction despite opposition from the spouses.
The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.
HELD:
A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the
land belonging to another.
The inclusion of building distinct and separate from the land in the Civil
Code can only mean that the building itself is an immovable property.
While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence
of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building in
itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built.
Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would
still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and
apart from the land.
The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land
was executed before the issuance of the sales patent and before the
government was divested of title to the land. Under the foregoing, it is
evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own
building was a valid mortgage.
As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued
and thus prohibits pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act.
8 TUMALAD V. VICENCIO
41 SCRA 143

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
FACTS:
Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs
Tumalad over their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and
Company. This was executed to guarantee a loan, payable in one year
with a 12% per annum interest.
The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan.
The house was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest
bidder. A corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that
the latter vacate the house as they were the proper owners.
HELD:
Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that
buildings are immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties
may agree to treat as personal property those by their nature would be
real property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the
principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as
chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from subsequently
claiming otherwise.
In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the
subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a
property through chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant
conveys the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as
such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent
stand by claiming otherwise.
9 MAKATI LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION V.
WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS
122 SCRA 296
FACTS:
To be able to secure financial accommodations from the petitioner, the
private respondent discounted and assigned several receivables under a
Receivable Purchase Agreement. To secure the collection of the
receivables, a chattel mortgage was executed over machinery found in the
factory of the private respondent.
As the private respondent failed to pay, the mortgage was extrajudicially
foreclosed. Nonetheless, the sheriff was unable to seize the machinery.
This prompted petitioner to file an action for replevin.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 5 of 123
The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the return of
the drive motor, after ruling that the machinery may not be the subject of
a chattel mortgage, given that it was an immovable under the provisions of
Article 415. The same was attached to the ground by means of bolts and
the only way to remove it from the plant would be to drill the ground.
HELD:
There is no logical justification to exclude the rule out that the machinery
may be considered as personal property, and subject to a chattel
mortgage. If a house may be considered as personal property for purposes
of executing a chattel mortgage, what more a machinery, which is movable
by nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may
not be likewise treated as such.
10 SERGS PRODUCTS AND GOQUIOLAY V. PCI LEASING AND
FINANCE
338 SCRA 499
FACTS:
PCI filed a case for collection of a sum of money as well as a writ of
replevin for the seizure of machineries, subject of a chattel mortgage
executed by petitioner in favor of PCI.
Machineries of petitioner were seized and petitioner filed a motion for
special protective order. It asserts that the machineries were real property
and could not be subject of a chattel mortgage.
HELD:
The machineries in question have become immobilized by destination
because they are essential and principal elements in the industry, and thus
have become immovable in nature.
Nonetheless, they are still proper subjects for a chattel mortgage.
Contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered
as personal. After agreement, they are consequently estopped from
claiming otherwise.
12 MANARANG AND MANARANG V. OFILADA AND ESTEBAN
99 SCRA 108
FACTS:
Manarang secured a loan from Esteban guaranteed by a chattel mortgage
over a house of mixed materials. Due to failure to pay, the chattel

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
mortgage was foreclosed. Before the sale of the property, Manarang tried
to pay for the property but the sheriff refused to accept tender unless there
is payment for the publication of the notice of sale in the newspapers.
This prompted Manarang to bring this suit to compel the sheriff to accept
payment. He averred that the publication was unnecessary as the house
should be considered as personal property per agreement in the chattel
mortgage, and the publication for notice of sale is unnecessary.
HELD:
There is no question that a building of mixed materials may be a subject of
chattel mortgage, in which case it is considered as between the parties as
personal property.
The mere fact that a house was the subject of chattel mortgage and was
considered as personal property by the parties doesnt make the said
house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale
in public auction. It is real property within the purview of Rule 39, Section
16 of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture on the land,
which is real property.
13 NAVARRO V. PINEDA
9 SCRA 631
FACTS:
Pineda and his mother executed real estate and chattel mortgages in favor
of Navarro, to secure a loan they got from the latter. The REM covered a
parcel of land owned by the mother while the chattel mortgage covered a
residential house. Due to the failure to pay the loan, they asked for
extensions to pay for the loan. On the second extension, Pineda executed
a PROMISE wherein in case of default in payment, he wouldnt ask for any
additional extension and there would be no need for any formal demand.
In spite of this, they still failed to pay.
Navarro then filed for the foreclosure of the mortgages. The court decided
in his favor.
HELD:
Where a house stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it
may be the subject matter of a chattel mortgage as personal property if so
stipulated in the document of mortgage, and in an action by the mortgagee
for the foreclosure, the validity of the chattel mortgage cannot be assailed
by one of the parties to the contract of mortgage.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 6 of 123
Furthermore, although in some instances, a house of mixed materials has
been considered as a chattel between the parties and that the validity of
the contract between them, has been recognized, it has been a constant
criterion that with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the
contract, and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as
immovable property.
14 DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO
61 SCRA 709
FACTS:
Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession. It operated a sawmill on a
land, which it doesnt own. Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation
in which after the lease agreement, all buildings and improvements would
pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include machineries
and accessories. In connection to this, petitioner had in its sawmill
machineries and other equipment wherein some were bolted in foundations
of cement.
HELD:
The machinery must be classified as personal property.
The lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging
to another, with the understanding that the machinery was not included in
the improvements which would pass to the lessor on the expiration of the
lease agreement. The lessee also treated the machinery as personal
property in executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. The
machinery was levied upon by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ
of execution obtained without any protest being registered.
Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant
by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant,
usufructuary, or any person having temporary right, unless such person
acted as the agent of the owner.
15 TSAI V. COURT OF APPEALS
336 SCRA 324
FACTS:
EVERTEX secured a loan from PBC, guaranteed by a real estate and chattel
mortgage over a parcel of land where the factory stands, and the chattels
located therein, as included in a schedule attached to the mortgage
contract. Another loan was obtained secured by a chattel mortgage over
properties with similar descriptions listed in the first schedule. During the

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
date of execution of the second mortgage, EVERTEX purchased
machineries and equipment.
Due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed for insolvency proceedings. It
failed to pay its obligation and thus, PBC initiated extrajudicial foreclosure
of the mortgages. PBC was the highest bidder in the public auctions,
making it the owner of the properties. It then leased the factory premises
to Tsai. Afterwards, EVERTEX sought the annulment of the sale and
conveyance of the properties to PBC as it was allegedly a violation of the
INSOLVENCY LAW.
The RTC held that the lease and sale were irregular as it involved
properties not included in the schedule of the mortgage contract.
HELD:
While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a
perusal of the contract of REM and CM executed by the parties gives a
contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and appellate courts
show that the intention was to treat the machineries as movables or
personal property.
Assuming that the properties were considered immovables, nothing
detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation
under the principle of estoppel.
16 MINDANAO BUS COMPANY V. CITY ASSESSOR AND
TREASURER
6 SCRA 197
FACTS:
Petitioner is engaged in a public utility business, solely engaged in
transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks, over its authorized
lines in Mindanao. It owns a main office and branch offices. To be found
in their offices are machineries and equipment, which were assessed by the
City Assessor as real properties.
HELD:
Movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of law must first
be essential and principal elements of an industry or works without which
such industry or works would be unable to function or carry on the
industrial purpose for which it was established. We may here distinguish
those movables, which are essential and principal elements of an industry,
from those which may not be so considered immobilized by destination
because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 7 of 123
In the case at bar, the tools and equipments in question are by their nature
not essential and principal elements of petitioners business of transporting
passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals.
17 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS V. MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY
10 SCRA 68
FACTS:
City Assessor of QC declared the steel towers for real property tax under
Tax Declarations. After denying the respondents petition to cancel these
declarations, an appeal was taken with the CTA which held that the steel
towers come under the exception of poles under the franchise given to
MERALCO; the steel towers are personal properties; and the City Treasurer
is liable for the refund of the amount paid.
HELD:
The steel towers of an electric company dont constitute real property for
the purposes of real property tax.
18 MANILA ELECTRIC CO. V. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS
114 SCRA 273
FACTS:
Petitioner owns two oil storage tanks, made of steel plates wielded and
assembled on the spot. Their bottoms rest on a foundation consisted of
compacted earth, sand pad as immediate layer, and asphalt stratum as top
layer. The tanks merely sit on its foundation.
The municipal treasurer of Batangas made an assessment for realty tax on
the two tanks, based on the report of the Board of Assessors. MERALCO
wished to oppose this assessment as they averred that the tanks are not
real properties.
HELD:
While the two storage tanks are not embodied in the land, they may
nevertheless be considered as improvements in the land, enhancing its
utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry.
For purposes of taxation, the term real property may include things, which
should generally be considered as personal property. it is familiar
phenomenon to see things classified as real property for purposes of
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 8 of 123

taxation which on general principle may be considered as personal

property. (2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial
entities, although they may have real estate. (336a)
19 CALTEX PHILS. V. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS
114 SCRA 296 Art. 418. Movable property is either consumable or nonconsumable.
To the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a
FACTS: manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed;
The City Assessor characterized the items in gas stations of petitioner as to the second class belong all the others. (337)
taxable realty. These items included underground tanks, elevated tank,
elevated water tanks, water tanks, gasoline pumps, computing pumps, etc. CLASSIFICATION OF MOVABLE PROPERTY
These items are not owned by the lessor of the land wherein the 1. According to their natureconsumable or non-consummable
equipment are installed. Upon expiration of the lease agreement, the 2. According the the intent of the partiesfungible or non-fungible
equipment should be returned in good condition.
PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
HELD:
The equipment and machinery as appurtenances to the gas station building Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private
or shed owned by Caltex and which fixtures are necessary to the operation ownership. (338)
of the gas station, for without them the gas station would be useless, and
which have been attached and fixed permanently to the gas station site or Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
embedded therein, are taxable improvements and machinery within the
meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code. (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
MOVABLE PROPERTY roadsteads, and others of similar character;

Art. 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 personal property;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public
use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. (339a)
PUBLIC DOMINION
Means ownership by the State in that the State has control and
administration
Ownership by the public in general

(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by THREE KINDS OF PROPERTY UNDER PUBLIC DOMINION
science; and 1. For public usemay be used by anybody
2. For public servicemay be used only by authorized persons
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place 3. For the development of national wealthlike our natural resources
to place without impairment of the real property to which they are
fixed. (335a) CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION
1. They are outside the commerce of man, and cannot be leased,
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property: donated, sold, or be the object of any contract, except insofar as
they may be the subject of repairs or improvements and other
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object incidental things of similar character
movables or demandable sums; and

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
2. They cannot be acquired by prescription, no matter how long the
possession of the properties has been
3. They cannot be registered under the LRA and be the subject of a
Torrens title
4. They as well as their usufruct may not be levied upon by
execution nor can they be attached
5. In general, they may be used by everybody
6. They may be either real or personal property
Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the
character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
(340a)
PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
Property that the State owns which is not devoted to public use,
public service or to the development of the national wealth
Owned by the State in its private capacity
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for
public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial
property of the State. (341a)
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is
divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. (343)
PROPERTIES OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
1. Property for public use
2. Patrimonial property
ALIENATION OF THE PROPERTIES
Properties of a political subdivision for public use cannot be
alienated as such and may not be acquired through prescription
Properties of a political subdivision which are patrimonial in
character may be alienated, and may be acquired by others
through prescription
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets,
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said
provinces, cities, or municipalities.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 9 of 123
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and
shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions
of special laws. (344a)
Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial
property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists
of all property belonging to private persons, either individually or
collectively. (345a)
PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE THREE PRECEDING CHAPTERS
Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual
declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or
"movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to
include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2.
Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it
shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial
securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic
collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and
their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other things
which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or
ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the
law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears.
(346a)
USE OF THE WORD MUEBLES
Word used synonymously with furniture
Furniture has generally for its principal object the furnishing or
ornamenting of a building
CASE DIGESTS: MOVABLE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY IN RELATION
TO PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
20 PIANSAY V. DAVID
12 SCRA 227
FACTS:
David secured a loan from Vda. De Uy Kim, and to secure the payment, he
executed a chattel mortgage over a house in favor of Kim. Due to failure
to pay, the CM was foreclosed and Kim was the highest bidder in the public
auction. Kim then sold the house to Mangubat. The latter then filed
charges against David for the collection of loan and praying that the deed

of sale issued by Kim in favor of Piansay be declared null and void. The
trial court held David liable to Mangubat but dismissed the complaint with
regard Kim and Piansay.
Kim and Piansay then filed charges against David and Mangubat. Due to
the civil case, David demanded from Piansay the payment of rentals for the
use of the house, which the latter claims to be his property.
HELD:
Regardless of the validity of a contract constituting a chattel mortgage on a
house, as between the parties to the said contract, the same cannot and
doesnt bind third persons who arent parties to the aforementioned
contract or their privies. As a consequence, the sale of the house in
question in the proceedings for the sale of the house in question in the
proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of said chattel mortgage, is
null and void insofar as Mangubat is concerned and didnt confer upon Kim
as buyer in said sale, any dominical right in and to said house.
21 SIBAL V. VALDEZ
50 PHIL 512
FACTS:
The Deputy Sheriff, through a writ of execution, attached the personal
properties of Sibal, including the sugar cane in question in the 7 parcels of
land described in a complaint. The personal properties were then sold in
public auction, including the sugar canes. Included also in those attached
were real properties wherein 8 out of the 11 parcels of land, house and
camarin were bought by Valdez through the public auction. He also bought
the sugar cane in question.
HELD:
Generally, sugar cane comes under the classification of ungathered
products under real properties in the CC. However, under certain
conditions, it may be considered as personal property. For purposes of
attachment and execution, as well as for the purposes of the Chattel
Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property.
22 RUBISO V. RIVERA
37 PHIL 72
FACTS:
Rubiso filed a complaint against Rivera for the recovery of a pilot boat. He
alleged that he is the rightful owner of a pilot boat, which was stranded
and recovered by Rivera. The latter refused to return the said boat as he
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 10 of 123
alleged too that he was the owner thereof. It was known that the original
owners of the boat had secretly sold the pilot boat to Rivera on an earlier
date than the sale in a public auction to Rubiso. Nonetheless, material is
the fact that the entry into the customs registry of the sale of the boat was
later than the recording of the sale to Rubiso.
HELD:
The requisite of registration in the registry, of the purchase of the vessel, is
necessary and indispensable in order that the purchasers rights may be
maintained against a third person. Such registration is required both by
the Code of Commerce and Act 1900. It is undeniable, ergo, that Rivera
doesnt have a better right than Rubiso over the pilot boat.
Ships and vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, partake, to a
certain extent of the nature and conditions of real property, on account of
their value and importance in world commerce; and for this, the provisions
of the Code of Commerce are nearly identical with Article 1473 of the CC.
23 PHIL. REFINING CO. V. JARQUE
61 PHIL 229
FACTS:
Philippine Refining and Jarque has entered into mortgages over two motor
vessels. These have been denominated as chattel mortgages. The fourth
mortgage was instituted 30 days before insolvency proceedings to which
Jarque prayed that he be declared as an insolvent debtor, which soon was
granted and all his rights to his properties were assigned to Corominas.
The trial court declined to order the foreclosure of the mortgages.
HELD:
Vessels are considered as personal property under the civil laws. Similarly,
under common law, they are considered as personal property but at some
circumstances are considered as peculiar kind of personal property. Since
the term personal property includes vessels, it may be the subject to the
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
24 US V. CARLOS
21 PHIL 553
FACTS:
Accused was charged with larceny or the unlawful use of electric current.
He was found guilty.
HELD:

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
It is true that electricity is no longer considered as fluid but its
manifestations and effects are like those of gas, may be seen and felt. The
true test on whether of what is a proper subject of larceny seems to be not
whether the subject is corporeal or not but whether it is capable of
appropriation by another than the owner.
Electricity, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other
personal property and is capable of appropriation by another.
J. MORELAND, DISSENTING:
An electric current is not a tangible thing, a chattel, but is a condition or
state on which a thing or chattel finds itself; and that a condition or state
cannot be stolen independently of the thing or chattel of which it is a
condition or state. That it is chattels, which are subjects of larceny and not
conditions. (Electricity is only energy)
25 US V. TAMBUNTING
41 PHIL 364
FACTS:
Accused and his wife were accused and later found guilty of stealing gas
from the Manila Gas Corporation. It was found out that during their
occupancy of the upper portion of a house wherein the corporation was
supplying gas, the spouses made an illegal connection so that they could
benefit from the supply.
HELD:
There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating purposes which
renders it incapable of being feloniously taken and carried away. It is a
valuable article of merchandise bought and sold like other personal
property, susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity and
of being transported from place to place.
26 INVOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY OF STROCHECKER V. RAMIREZ
44 PHIL 933
FACTS:
Three mortgages were seeking preference in the lower court. The one of
Fidelity and Surety Co. alleged that it should be given preference as the
mortgage in favor of Ramirez was not valid as the subject of the mortgage
cannot be a proper subject thereof. The subject involved in the 1st
mortgage is an interest in business of a drug store.
HELD:
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 11 of 123
Such interest in the business is a personal property capable of
appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties in the
CC, and may be the subject of mortgage. All personal property may be
mortgaged.
27 CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY
384 SCRA 152
FACTS:
President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA, which was
tasked with the development, improvement, and acquisition, lease, and
sale of all kinds of lands. The then president also transferred to PEA the
foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal
Road and Reclamation Project.
Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of land and
then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the development
of the Freedom Islands. These two entered into a joint venture in the
absence of any public bidding.
Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda
denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was
conducted and it was concluded that the lands that PEA was conveying to
AMARI were lands of the public domain; the certificates of title over the
Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted
Ramos to form an investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.
Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to lose
billions by the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He
also asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening between
the parties.
ISSUE:
W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of the
lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
HELD:
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands
and waters of the public domain.
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all
natural resources are owned by the State and except for alienable

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be
alienated.
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84
hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and
the rest of the area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay.
Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in
reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs
to be incurred.
The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of
the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequently
owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be
alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public
domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert The CA reversed the decision.
these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential
proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and
disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public
use.
28 REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS
281 SCRA 639
FACTS:
Morato has filed for patent over a parcel of land, of which was granted
under the condition that he would not encumber it for a period of 5 years
from issuance of patent. It was then found out that he mortgaged and
leased the lots. The government sought for the revocation of the patent
issued. The trial court and appellate court decided in favor of the
respondents.
HELD:
Foreshore lands have been defined to be that part of the land which is
between the high and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the
tides. This is the strip of land that lies between the high and low
watermarks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of
the tide.
Foreshore lands may not anymore be the subject of issuance of free
patents. Under property of public ownership or dominion are foreshore
lands, as provided for in the Civil Code.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 12 of 123
It is to be noted that when the sea moved towards the estate and the tide
invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the
realm of public domain.
29 LANZAR V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
78 SCRA 130
FACTS:
Lanzar filed for application for registration of title over a parcel of land, to
which the Director of Lands objected to as the land in question, according
to him, was part of the foreshore lands. The trial court adjudicated the
land to Lanzar as the said land wasnt necessary for public utility or
establishment of special industries.
HELD:
Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the
action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer
washed by the water of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of
public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for
coastguard services, then the Government shall declare them to be
property of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as increment
thereof.
29 IGNACIO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
108 PHIL 335
FACTS:
Ignacio filed for the registration of title over a mangrove to which he later
said that he acquired right to the mangrove through accretion.
HELD:
Land formed by the action of the sea is property of the State.
Land of the public domain is not subject to acquisitive prescription.
30 VILLARICO V. COURT OF APPEALS
309 SCRA 193
FACTS:
Spouses Villarico sought for the confirmation of title over a parcel of land to
which they allege that they absolutely own the land. This was opposed to
by a person who posed himself also to be the rightful owner of the land, as

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
well as by the Director of Forestry who said that the subject land is part of
forest land and may not be appropriated. Trial and appellate court
dismissed application of petitioners.
HELD:
There has been no showing that a declassification has been made of the
land in question as disposable or alienable. And the record indeed
disclosed that applicants have not introduced any evidence which would
have led the court a quo to rule otherwise.
Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. Possession thereof, no
matter how long doesnt ripen to a registrable title. The adverse
possession which may be the basis of a grant or title or confirmation of an
imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public
domain.
31 VILLANUEVA V. CASTANEDA
154 SCRA 142
FACTS:
Petitioners claim the right to remain in and conduct business in the area
(talipapa) by virtue of a previous authorization granted to them by the
municipal government. The respondents denied this and alleged that the
demolitions of the stalls were not illegal.
HELD:
A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the
subject of lease or any other commercial undertaking.
32 DACANAY JR. V. ASISTIO JR.
208 SCRA 404
FACTS:
An ordinance was issued designated certain city and municipal streets,
roads, and other public areas for sites of public markets. Pursuant to this,
licenses were issued to market stall owners to put up their stalls in certain
streets. Thereafter, the OIC mayor of Caloocan has caused the demolition
of the stalls, which was upheld by the trial court, saying that the public
streets are part of the public dominion and is not open to the commerce of
man. Then there come about a change in administration of the city. The
next mayor did not continue the demolition of the stalls. Using the trial
courts decision, here now comes petitioner asking for the demolition of the
stalls.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 13 of 123
HELD:
There is no doubt that the disputed areas from which the private
respondents market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets. A
public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of
man. Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of
lease or other contract.
The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away
through contract. The interests of the few should not prevail over the good
of the greater number in the community.
33 CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. V. BERCILLES
66 SCRA 431
FACTS:
The land sought to be registered in this case was formerly a part of a
street. Through a resolution, it was declared to be an abandoned road and
not part of the City development plan. Thereafter, it was sold through a
public bidding and petitioner was the highest bidder. He then sought to
register said land but his application was dismissed.
HELD:
The portion of the city street subject to petitioners application for
registration of title was withdrawn from public use. Then it follows that
such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property of the State. It is
also very clear from the Charter that property thus withdrawn from public
servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real
property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed.
34 LAUREL V. GARCIA
187 SCRA 797
FACTS:
The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the
Philippines from Japan pursuant to a Reparations Agreement. The property
is where the Philippine Embassy was once located, before it transferred to
the Nampeidai property. It was decided that the properties would be
available to sale or disposition. One of the first properties opened up for
public auction was the Roppongi property, despite numerous oppositions
from different sectors.
HELD:
The Roppongi property was acquired together with the other properties
through reparation agreements. They were assigned to the government
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 14 of 123

sector and that the Roppongi property was specifically designated under The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
the agreement to house the Philippine embassy. possessor of the thing in order to recover it. (348a)

It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property 7 RIGHTS OF AN OWNER UNDER ROMAN LAW
has become patrimonial. The respondents have failed to do so.
Jus possidendi The right to possess
As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce
of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective Jus utendi The right to use
ownership for general use and payment, in application to the satisfaction of
collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to Jus fruendi The right to the fruits
serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for
the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation. Jus abutendi The right to consume

The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Jus disponendi The right to dispose
Embassy service doesnt automatically convert it to patrimonial property.
Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public Jus vindicandi The right to recover
use. A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for
private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the Jus accessiones The right to accessories
part of the government to withdraw it from being such.

OWNERSHIP ACTIONS TO RECOVER

OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. (n)
OWNERSHIP
Independent and general right of a person to control a thing
particularly in his possession, enjoyment, disposition and
recovery, subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the
state or private persons, without prejudice to the provisions of the
law
KINDS OF OWNERSHIP
1. Full ownershipall rights of an owner
2. Naked ownershipownership where the right to the use and the
fruits have been denied
3. Sole ownershipownership is only vested in one person
4. Co-ownership
1. Replevin
2. Accion interdictalforcible entry and unlawful detainer
3. Accion publiciana
4. Accion reinvidicatoria
5. Writ of possession | writ of demolition
6. Writ of preliminary injunction
REPLEVIN
An action or provisional remedy where the complainant prays for
the recovery of the possession of PERSONAL PROPERTY
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Summary action to recover material or physical possession of real
property when a person originally in possession was deprived
thereof by force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth
Action must be brought within 1 year from the dispossession
Issue involved is mere physical possession or possession de facto
and not juridical possession nor ownership

Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, UNLAWFUL DETAINER
without other limitations than those established by law. Action that must be brought when the possession by a landlord,
vendor, vendee or other person of any land or building is being

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right
to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied
Action must be brought within one year from last demand letter
ACCION PUBLICIANA
Recovery of the better right to possess, and is a plenary action in
an ordinary civil proceeding before the RTC
Must be brought within a period of 10 years otherwise the real
right to possess is lost
Issue is possession de jure
ACCION REINVIDICATORIA
Action to recover ownership over real property
Must be brought in the RTC
It must be brought within 10 or 30 years as the case may be
Issue involved is ownership and for this purpose, evidence of title
or mode may be introduced
It is permissible to file both an action for ownership and for
detainer over the same land, and between the same parties,
because the issues involved are different
WRIT OF INJUNCTION
A person deprived of his possession of real or personal property is
ordinarily not allowed to avail himself of this remedy, the reason
being that the defendant in actual possession is presumed
disputably to have the better right
WRIT OF POSSESSION
Used in connection with the Land Registration Law is an order
directing the sheriff to place a successful registrant under the
Torrens system in possession of the property covered by a decree
of the Court
OWNERSHIP HAS LIMITATIONS
1. Those given by the State or the laws
2. Those given by the owner himself
3. Those given by the person who gave the right to its present owner
Art. 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. (n)
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 15 of 123
DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
The right to counter force with force
Comparable with self-defense under justifying circumstances in
Criminal Law
Ampil: exception to the general rule
Art. 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. (388)
Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such
manner as to injure the rights of a third person. (n)
NO INJURY TO RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
This is one of the fundamental bases of police power and
constitutes a just restriction on the right of ownership
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the interference is
necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened
damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the
person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. (n)
STATE OF NECESSITY
ANALOGOUS TO THE RULE UNDER CRIMINAL LAW
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which
causes damage to another doesn't incur criminal liability provided that the
following requisites are present:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. That there be no other practical or less harmful means of
preventing it
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort
to judicial process for the recovery of the property. (n)
RULE OF EVIDENCE
REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION
1. Actual possession of the property

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
2. Claim of ownership
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified,
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on
the weakness of the defendant's claim. (n)
REQUISITES IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER
1. Identity of the property
2. Strength of the plaintiffs title
Art. 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.
(349a)
EMINENT DOMAIN V. EXPROPRIATION
Eminent domain is the power of the state and expropriation is the
proceeding
Art. 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. (n)
Art. 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. (350a)
SURFACE RIGHT OF A LAND OWNER
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 any share of the treasure.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 16 of 123
If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State
may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated. (351a)
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. (352)
RULES REGARDING HIDDEN TREASURES
1. If the treasure is not hidden, there is no 50-50 sharing
2. If the precious metals are in their raw state, it will be owned by
the State by virtue of the Regalian doctrine
3. If the owner finds the treasure in his own land, he owns the
treasure
4. If finder finds it not in his own land, there is 50-50 sharing with
the owner of the land
5. If the finder is hired, then compensation or salary or fixed fee will
be given to him
6. If the finder is a trespasser, then he would not receive anything
2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT REGARDING BY CHANCE
1. If there is deliberate search, it is not to be construed as by
chance
2. Even if there is a deliberate search, still by chance since there is
uncertainity of finding a treasure
CASE DIGESTS: OWNERSHIP
35 CHIAO LIONG TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS
228 SCRA 75
FACTS:
Chiao Long Tan claims to be the owner of a 1976 Isuzu Elf van. As owner
thereof, petitioner says he has been in possession, enjoyment, and
utilization of the van until his older brother, Tan Ban Yong, unlawfully took
it away from him.
Petitioner relies on the fact:
1. That the van is registered under his name.
2. He claims to have bought the vehicle from isuzu balintawak;
3. That he sent his brother to pay for the van and the receipt was
issued in his name because it was his money that was used to pay
for the vehicle;

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
4. That he allowed his brother to use the vehicle because the latter
was working for the company;
5. And that his brother later refused to return the vehicle and
appropriated the same for himself.
Private respondent on the other hand testifies:
1. CLT Industries is the family business and it was under the name of
petitioner since at the that time, he was leaving for the US and
petitioner is the only Filipino left in the Philippines
2. When the family business needed a vehicle, he asked petitioner to
look for a vehicle and gave him money as downpayment for an
Isuzu Elf van
3. After a month, he paid for the van by getting a loan from a friend
4. As much as the receipt was placed in the name of petitioner,
private respondent allowed the registration under the name of
petitioner
5. There was also agreement that he would use the vehicle as he
paid for the same
All the abovementioned allegations of private respondent has been
corroborated by witnesses. The trial court hence ruled in favor of the
private respondent and the CA affirmed this decision.
HELD:
It is true that the judgment in a replevin suit must only resolve in whom is
the right of possession. Primarily, the action of replevin is possessory in
character and determines nothing more than the right of possession.
However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the
defendants plea and by reason of this policy to settle in one action all the
conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in
controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same
proceeding.
Furthermore, a replevin action is primarily one for the possession of
personalty, yet it is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all
equities between the parties, arising or growing out of the main
controversy. Thus, in an action for replevin where the defendant is
adjudged to possession, he need not go to another forum to procure relief
for the return of the replevied property or secure judgment for the value of
the property in case the adjudged return thereof could not be had.
36 CALUB V. COURT OF APPEALS
331 SCRA 55
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 17 of 123
FACTS:
The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office of the DENR apprehended two
trucks carrying with it illegally sourced lumber. The drivers failed to show
any legal documents. Thereafter, the trucks and lumber were seized. A
criminal complaint was filed against them.
The trucks were taken forcibly by the two drivers from the custody of
DENR. This prompted the department to file charges but these were
dismissed. Again though, the trucks were then caught and seized, for
carrying illegally sourced lumber once again. Subsequently, an action for
replevin was filed by the private respondents. The trial court granted the
application for replevin and the CA affirmed this decision.
HELD:
Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure
was in accordance with law, the subject vehicles were validly deemed in
custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin. For it is
property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the
custody of the law, and not otherwise.
37 SARMIENTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
250 SCRA 108
FACTS:
Cruz was the owner of a parcel of land. Adjacent to this lot is one wherein
Sarmiento had a house built on. On trying to cause the relocation of her
lot, Cruz found out that Sarmiento was encroaching on her property. When
Cruz talked to Sarmiento about constructing a new fence, which will cover
her true property, the latter vehemently refused to do so and threatened
Cruz with legal action. For fear of being sued in court, she sought judicial
relief. The trial court decided in favor of Cruz. Sarmiento tried to assail
this decision by saying that the issue was on ownership of the portion of
land and thus, the action should have been an accion reivindicatoria and
not forcible entry.
HELD:
A careful reading of the facts averred in said complaint filed by Cruz
reveals that the action is neither of forcible entry nor of unlawful detainer
but essentially involves a boundary dispute, which must be resolved in an
accion reivindicatoria on the issue of ownership over the portion of a lot.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are distinct actions.
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 18 of 123

FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL DETAINER extension granted for the submission of the survey and failure to do so
One is deprived of physical One unlawfully withholds possession would prompt the issuance of the writ of execution. Upon failure of
possession of land or building by thereof after the expiration or petitioner to submit a survey report, the judge ordered the return of the
means of force, intimidation, threat, termination of his right to hold records of the case to the court of origin for disposal.
strategy or stealth possession under contract, express
of implied HELD:
The possession is illegal from the The possession was originally lawful In forcible entry, one employs FISTS to deprive another physical
very beginning and the basic inquiry but becomes unlawful by the possession of land or building. Thus, plaintiff must allege and prove prior
centers on who has the prior expiration or termination of the physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived thereof by
possession de facto right to possess, hence the issue of defendant. Sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or material
rightful possession, is decisive for, possession of the property. Neither a claim of juridical possession nor an
in such action, the defendant is in averment of ownership by the defendant can outrightly prevent the court
actual possession and the plaintiffs from taking cognizance of the case. Ejectment cases proceed
cause of action is the termination of independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to
the defendants right to continue in prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.
possession
In the present case, the lower court lacked jurisdiction in this case. First,
the house of petitioner was actually situated in the lot subject of the anti-
Cruz cannot belatedly claim that petitioners possession of the controverted
squatting case and not on the lot of the spouses. Second, the house has
portion was by mere tolerance. The complaint didnt characterize
been in existence prior to the alleged date of forcible entry. Third, the
Sarmientos alleged entry on the landwhether legal or illegal. The
respondents had knowledge of the existence of the house long before the
complaint admitted also of the fact that the fence had already preexisted
alleged date of entry.
on the lot when she acquired the same.
Forcible entry is a quieting process, and that the restrictive time bar is
This was definitely not a situation obtained in and gave rise to an
prescribed to complement the summary nature of the process. Indeed, the
ejectment suit for two reasons. First, forcible entry into the land is an
one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is
open challenge to the right of the lawful possessor, the violation of which
generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However,
right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court provided for in the
when entry is made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted
Rules. Second, if a forcible entry action in the court is allowed after the
from the time plaintiff knew about it. after the lapse of the one-year
lapse of a number of years, then the result may well be no action of
period, the party dispossessed of a parcel of land may file either an accion
forcible entry can really prescribe. No matter how long such defendant is
publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right to possession, or
in physical possession, the plaintiff may just throw in a demand, file a suit
an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as
in court and summarily throw him out of the land.
possession.
38 BONGATO V. MALVAR
39 DE LA CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
387 SCRA 327
286 SCRA 230
FACTS:
FACTS:
Spouses Malvar filed a complaint for forcible entry against Bongato, for
Petitioner contracted a loan from Villanuevas parents, mortgaging the
allegedly unlawfully entering a parcel of land and constructed a house of
subject parcel of land as security. Years after, the parcel of land became
light materials thereon. The trial court ordered petitioner to vacate the lot
the subject for an application for registration by the Ramos brothers. They
and thereafter issued an order insofar as to determine the location of the
insisted that they had a better claim over the land than petitioner. After
houses involved in the civil case is the same with the one in the criminal
trial, the case was dismissed as the land has not been reclassified for other
case for anti-squatting. The judge made a warning that there will be no
purposes and remained a part of the forest reserve. Consequently, the

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
brothers were able to secure reclassification of the land and the same was
registered in their name as owners, and they later sold the land to
Villanueva. Thereafter, petitioner came to know of the registration and
filed a complaint, which was dismissed.
HELD:
Petitioner possessed and occupied the land after it had been declared by
the government as part of the forest reserve. In fact, the land remained
as part of the forest reserve until such time it was reclassified into
alienable or disposable land at the behest of the Ramoses. A positive act
of the government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest,
and to convert it into alienable and disposable land for other purposes.
Until such lands have been properly declared to be available for other
purposes, there is no disposable land to speak of. Absent the fact of
declassification prior to the possession and cultivation in good faith by
petitioner, the property occupied by him remained classified as forest or
timberland, which he could not have acquired by prescription.
40 PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY V. FERNANDEZ
358 SCRA 489
FACTS:
The subject parcel of land was subject of an expropriation proceeding
entered into by EPZA and the newly registered owners of the land. Private
respondents sought the nullity of the documents executed as he alleged
that he was excluded from the extrajudicial partition of the estate,
originally owned by their predecessors. Petitioner sought the dismissal of
the complaint as it was allegedly barred by prescription. This was denied
by the trial court and the CA.
HELD:
An action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes 4 years from
the discovery of the fraud; such discovery is deemed to have taken place
upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. Registration
of real property is considered constructive notice to all persons, and thus, a
four-year period shall be counted therefrom. The action for reconveyance
based on fraud has already prescribed.
Even an action for reconveyance based on an implied constructive trust
would have already prescribed. The imprescriptibility of an action for
reconveyance based on implied trust applies only when the plaintiff is in
possession of the property. However, private respondents are not in
possession of the disputed property. In fact, they dont even claim to be in
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 19 of 123
possession of it, even if to so would enable them to justify the
imprescriptibility of their action.
Furthermore, reconveyance is a remedy to those whose property has been
wrongfully registered in the name of another. Such recourse however
cannot be availed of once the property has passed to an innocent
purchaser for value. For an action for reconveyance to prosper, the
property should not have passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value.
41 IDOLOR V. COURT OF APPEALS
351 SCRA 399
FACTS:
Idolor issued a deed of REM with right to extrajudicial foreclosure of the
property upon failure to redeem the mortgage, in favor of De Guzman for a
loan, which she secured. Upon her failure to pay, Guzman sought the
foreclosure of the REM. The property was sold in public auction to
Gumersindo. Petitioner now sought the nullity of the proceedings for
alleged irregularities. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining those concerned from executing a final deed of sale and
consolidation of ownership.
HELD:
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights
and interests. Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the
following requisites be present:
1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
protected
2. The act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation
of such right
Hence, the existence of the right violated, is a prerequisite to the granting
of an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future
rights.
The petitioner no longer has any proprietary right to speak of over the
foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction.
42 CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS V. COURT OF
APPEALS
254 SCRA 220
FACTS:

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
The subject lot of this case was formerly classified as timberland till the
time it was reclassified by the government as public land. Petitioners were
then authorized to survey land, for purposes of subdivision into residential
lots. Meanwhile, NHA initiated expropriation proceedings including the
subject lot. Petitioner intervened and said that instead of being paid
through money, it preferred acquisition of any housing area of NHA. Upon
learning of the annulment of the title over the same land, the NHA sought
the suspension of the expropriation proceedings. Thereafter, the SC finally
resolved by annulling the title and declaring the subject lot to be public
land. The Bureau was furnished of the decision and according to an
investigation, members of the petitioner was found settling in the land. A
Presidential proclamation was then issued reserving the entire subject land
for a slum improvement project of the NHA. This led to the rejection of the
survey submitted by petitioner and the demolition of the settlement
constructed by members of the petitioner. This prompted petitioner to file
a case for forcible entry on which the trial court decided in its favor.
During the pendency of the civil case, a special patent was issued for the
entire subject land. The petitioner sought the execution of decision, which
was countered by a case for quieting of title by the NHA.
HELD:
As an extraordinary remedy, injunction is calculated to preserve or
maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent
actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard. As
such, injunction is accepted as a strong arm of equity or a transcendent
remedy to be used cautiously, as it affects the respective rights of the
parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme
necessity.
NHA was entitled to the writ of injunction because of the pendency of an
appeal for forcible entry; the special patent issued to it by the president
over the parcel of land.
43 LUCERO V. LOOT
25 SCRA 687
FACTS:
The trial court granted a writ of possession in favor of Lucero. This was
opposed to by oppositors Loot but the court didnt see any merit in the
same. Consequently, a writ of possession was issued.
HELD:
A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has
been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 20 of 123
occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration
proceedings. the issuance of the decree of registration is part of the
registration proceedings. In fact, it is supposed to end the said
proceedings. Consequently, any person unlawfully and adversely
occupying said lot at any time up to the issuance of the final decree, may
be subject to a judicial ejectment by means of a writ of possession and it is
the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked by the
successful claimant.
If the writ of possession issued in a land registration implies the delivery of
the possession of the land to the successful litigant therein, a writ of
demolition must, likewise issue, especially considering that the latter writ is
but a complement of the latter, which, without said writ of execution would
be ineffective.
44 VENCILAO V. VANO
182 SCRA 492
FACTS:
Three consolidated cases are resolved, given that there are same parties
and parcels of land in question.
On the first case, it was tackled that the heirs of the late Juan Reyes filed
an application for registration of the subject parcel of land. A
reconveyance case was filed against them by petitioners on the ground
that they are true owners of thereof.
The second case involved the death of the administratix of the estate of the
owner of the subject land. After her death, a TCT was issued in the name
of Pedro Luspo, and another was issued in the name of several persons. A
writ of possession was issued by the trial court against the petitioners.
HELD:
Petitioners contend that they were not claimants-oppositors nor defeated
oppositors in the said land registration case, as their names dont appear in
the amended application for registration. They have occupied the subject
parcels of land for more than 30 years which began long before the
application for registration; and that even after registration, they continued
to possess the land.
In a registration case, the judgment confirming the title of the applicant
and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carried with it the right
of ownership. The issuance of the writ of possession is therefore
sanctioned by existing laws in this jurisdiction and by the generally

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
accepted principle upon which the administration of justice rests. A writ of
possession may be issued not only against the person who has been
defeated in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully and
adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land
registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
45 GERMAN MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES V. COURT OF
APPEALS
177 SCRA 495
FACTS:
Spouses Jose issued a power of attorney in favor of petitioner for the
development of their parcel of land into a subdivision. Private respondents
were occupying the land and petitioner advised them to vacate but they
refused. Thereafter, petitioner continued their development and
construction. Respondents then filed a case for forcible entry. The trial
court dismissed the complaint and this was reversed by the CA.
HELD:
Notwithstanding petitioners claim that it was duly authorized by the
owners to develop the subject property, private respondents as actual
possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because
ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process, and
never determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not involved.
Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim ownership based on the
muniment of title it presented, such evidence doesnt responsively address
the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case. It must
be stated that regardless of the actual condition of title to the property, the
party in a peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong
hand, violence or terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can
recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatver may be
the character of his prior possession, if he has in favor priority in time, he
has security that entitles him to remain on the property until he has been
lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or
accion reivindicatoria.
46 CAISIP V. PEOPLE
36 SCRA 17
FACTS:
Cabalag and her husband cultivated a parcel of land in Hacienda Palico,
which was owned by Roxas y Cia. Caisip is the overseer of the land. The
land cultivated was previously tenanted by the father of Cabalag. On a
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 21 of 123
relevant date, Guevarra sought recognition as a lawful tenant from the CAR
but such was dismissed as it was held that he wasnt a tenant thereof.
Thereafter, Roxas filed a case for forcible entry against Guevarra, on which
he won and the court ordered Guevarra to vacate the lot. Meanwhile,
there was an altercation between Cabalag and Caisip over the cutting of
sugar cane. She was being asked to leave by Caisip but she refused.
Thereafter, she was charged with grave coercion. When she was again
seen in the Hacienda and weeding, she was forcibly dragged by policemen
and Caisip. This prompted for the filing a case for grave coercion.
HELD:
Article 429 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The complainant didnt usurp
or invade said lot. She had merely remained in possession thereof, even
though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor. Appellants
didnt repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
or usurpation of the property. They expelled the complainant from a
property on which she and her husband were in possession even before the
action for forcible entry was filed against them.
47 HEIRS OF VENCILAO, SR. V. COURT OF APPEALS
288 SCRA 574
FACTS:
Petitioners sought the quieting of title, recovery of possession and
ownership over a parcel of land. They allege that they are the rightful
owners, having inherited the land from their father. The private
respondents contend on the other hand that they are the rightful owners,
getting rightful ownership from buying the land through a public auction by
PNB. The trial court held in favor of the petitioners while the CA reversed
the decision.
HELD:
1. The rule is settled that prescription doesnt run against registered
landa title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by
adverse, open and notorious possession.
2. In order that an action for recovery of ownership of real property
may prosper, the person who claims that he has a better right to
it must prove not only his ownership of the same but also
satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
3. As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of
the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the
right to rely on what appears on the face of the title though, by
way of exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicate
any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.
4. Identity of the land doctrine
48 OCLARIT V. COURT OF APPEALS
233 SCRA 239
FACTS:
Petitioners instituted an action for reconveyance against the heirs of Neri.
Previously, there was an agreement entered into by Neri with the heirs. In
the said agreement, Neri was a vendee-a-retro who has been entrusted the
possession of parcel of land for 14 years. After said period, he would
return possession to the petitioners. The trial court decided in favor of
petitioners. The CA reversed, saying that petitioner failed to show
preponderance of evidence to support their claim of absolute ownership.
HELD:
In able to maintain an action for recovery of ownership, the person who
claims that he has a better right of the property must prove not only his
ownership of the property claimed but also the identity thereof, fixing the
identity of the land claimed by describing the location, area and boundaries
thereof.
What really defines a parcel of land isnt the area mentioned in its
description but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and
indicating its limits.
49 HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT V. COURT OF APPEALS
233 SCRA 239
FACTS:
Oclarit has purchased a parcel of land on which there was no permanent
landmarks or boundaries. The property was just described in the deed of
sale. He then again purchased parcels of land, again without no clear
boundaries or landmarks. Thereafter, petitioners instituted action against
Balasabas for quieting of title. Having no permanent or clear boundaries
and failing to work on an area planted to palay, the private respondent
climbed coconut trees and placed markings. The petitioners moved for the
quieting of title for worries on confusion on property.
HELD:
Although it is true that what defines a piece of land is not the area
mentioned but the boundaries therein laid down, in controversial cases
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 22 of 123
where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of
the property gains importance.
50 DOMINICA CUTANDA V. HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA
335 SCRA 418
FACTS:
PR brought an action for recovery of possession of parcels of land they
alleged to have been owned by their grandfather and later on inherited by
his children. They intended to work personally on the lands but was
frustrated as it was being occupied by the petitioners. PR then prayed that
they be declared owners of 1/5 of the subject real properties and that
petitioners be ordered to return to them said properties. Trial court held
that the petitioners owned the land through prescription.
HELD:
Private respondents action is barred by prescription. An accion publiciana
to recover the right to possession and to be declared owners of the subject
lands. Their complaint surely put in issue the ownership of the lands. It
may thus be properly treated as an accion reivindicatoria. These two
remedies must be availed of within 10 years from dispossession.
51 SPOUSES LUIS CRUZ V. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO FERNANDO
SR.
DECEMBER 9, 2005
FACTS:
Spouses Cruz were the occupants of a front portion of a property. An
accion publiciana was filed against them by spouses Fernando, alleging that
they are the rightful owners thereof and asking that the Cruz spouses
vacate the land and pay reasonable rent for the use thereof. The RTC
ruled in favor of the spouses Fernando.
HELD:
The absence of any formal deed of conveyance is a strong indication that
the parties didnt intend immediate transfer of ownership.
Petitioners dont have a superior right of ownership or possession to speak
of. Their occupation of the property was merely through the tolerance of
the owners. Evidence on record shows that petitioners and their
predecessors were able to live and build their house on the property
through the permission and kindness of the previous owner. They have no
title or at the very least, a contract of lease over the property. Based as it
is was on mere tolerance, petitioners possession could neither ripen into
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 23 of 123

ownership nor operate to bar any action by respondents to recover is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon
absolute possession thereof. A person who occupies the land of another at demand.
the latters forebearance or permission without any contract between them

RIGHT OF ACCESSION

Accession

Accession Discreta Accession Continua

With reference to real property With reference to personal property

Accession Industrial Accession Natural Adjunction or conjunction Mixture Specification

(Builder, Planter, Sower)

Alluvium Avulsion Change of course of rivers Formation of islands Inclusion (engraftment) Confusion (liquids)

Soldadura (attachment) Commixtion (solids)

Tejido (weaving)

Pintura (painting)

Escritura (writing)

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 24 of 123

ACCESSION DISCRETA
(RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS PRODUCED BY CHARACTERISTIC OF THE EXPENSES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 443
PROPERTY) They must have been used for production, gathering, or
preservation, not for the improvement of the property
Art. 441. To the owner belongs: They must have been necessary and not luxurious or excessive

(1) The natural fruits; Art. 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as
natural or industrial fruits.
(2) The industrial fruits;
With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of
(3) The civil fruits. (354) the mother, although unborn. (357)

Art. 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,
and the young and other products of animals.
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through
cultivation or labor.
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. (355a)
TECHNICAL MEANING OF FRUITS
The term natural, civil and industrial fruits as defined by the Code
are highly technical, therefore, when they are found in a final
judgment, there can be no doubt as to their meaning
NATURAL FRUITS
The spontaneous products of the soil
The young and other products of animals
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
Those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor
YOUNG OF ANIMALS
The offspring of animals belong to the owner of the mother
applicable when the male and female belong to different owners
This follows the maxim of pratus sequitor ventremthe offspring
follows the dam or mother
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. (356)
RULES FOR CIVIL FRUITS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM NATURAL AND
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
1. Civil fruits accrue daily and are therefore considered in the
category of personal property; natural and industrial fruits, while
still growing, are real property
2. Civil fruits can be prorated while natural and industrial fruits
cannot ordinarily
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY
(ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL)
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. (358)
Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by
the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)
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. (360a)

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 25 of 123

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 Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer
indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who
who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.
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 This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or
the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix (365a)
the terms thereof. (361a)
Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to damages under article 2176. (n)
indemnity. (362)
PROPERTY ACCESSION CHARTS
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, C/O ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the
work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to RULES WHEN LANDOWNER (LO)-BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER (BPS)
replace things in their former condition at the expense of the MAKES CONSTRUCTIONS OR PLANTINGS OF ANOTHER (OM)
person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder LM-BPS OM
or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH
rent. (363a) LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM is entitled to full payment for
provided there is full payment value of materials OR OM may
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner remove materials provided there is
is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. (n) no substantial injury to the work
done
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to
BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the
LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM is entitled to full payment for
land. (n)
provided there is full payment plus value of materials plus damages OR
damages OM may remove the materials even
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person
if there will be substantial injury to
who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the
the work done plus damages
part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall
GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH
be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM loses the materials without
without paying for the value thereof indemnity and will be liable for
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner
whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without and will be entitled to damages due damages due to defects or inferior
to defective or inferior quality of quality of materials
opposition on his part. (354a)
materials
Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, BAD FAITH BAD FAITH
planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article Same as when the parties are in good faith
447 shall apply. (n)

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
RULES WHEN BPS BUILDS, PLANTS, SOWS ON THE LAND OF
ANOTHER (LM)
LANDOWNER BPS
GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH
Option 1: To purchase whatever has To receive indemnity for the
been built, planted, or sown after necessary, useful and luxurious
paying indemnity which includes expenses (if LO wants to
necessary expenses, useful appropriate the luxurious
expenses, and luxurious expenses improvements) AND the right of
(if the LO wants to appropriate the retention over the land without
luxurious improvements) obligation to pay rent until full
payment of indemnity
To remove useful improvements
provided it doesn't cause any injury
(part of the right of retention)
If LO doesn't appropriate luxurious
improvements, BPS can remove the
same provided there is no injury to
the principal thing
Option 2: To oblige the BP to buy To purchase land at FMV when
the land OR the S to pay the proper value is not considerably more than
rent unless the value of the land is that of building or trees
considerably more than that of the
building or trees If BPS cannot pay purchase price of
the land, LO can require BPS to
remove whatever has been built,
planted or sown.
If the value of land is considerably
more than that of the building or
trees, the BPS cannot be compelled
to buy the land. In such case, BPS
will pay reasonable rent if LO
doesn't choose option 1.
If BPS cannot pay the rent, LO can
eject BPS from the land.
GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH
Option 1: To acquire whatever has Loses whatever has been built,
been built, planted or sown without planted or sown without indemnity
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 26 of 123
paying indemnity EXCEPT necessary and liable to pay for damages.
expenses for the preservation of the
land and luxurious expenses (should Entitled to reimbursement for
the LO want to appropriate the necessary expenses for preservation
luxurious improvements) plus of the land but no right of retention.
damages
Entitled to reimbursement for useful
expenses but cannot remove useful
improvements even if removal will
not cause injury.
Not erntitled to reimbursement for
luxurious expenses EXCEPT when
LO wants to acquire luxurious
improvements (value of which will
be the one at the time LO enters
into possession)
Entitled to remove luxurious
improvements provided it will not
cause injury and LO doesn't want to
acquire them.
Option 2: To oblige BP to buy land Obliged to pay for land or proper
or S to pay proper rent plus rent and pay for damages.
damages
Option 3: To compel BPS to remove Obliged to remove or demolish work
or demolish work done plus done at his expense and pay
damages. damages.
BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH
To acquire whatever has been built, If LO acquires whatever has been
planted or sown by paying built, planted or sown, BPS must be
indemnity plus damages. indemnified the value thereof plus
damages.
(If LO doesn't acquire whatever has
been built, planted or sown, BPS
cannot insist on purchasing land.)
BPS can remove whatever has been
built, planted, or sown regardless of
whether or not it will cause injury
and will be entitled to damages.
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 27 of 123

BAD FAITH BAD FAITH Same as when both parties are in good faith
without paying damages but is entitled they are in good faith.)
RULES WHEN LO, BPS, AND OM ARE 3 DIFFERENT PERSONS indemnity EXCEPT to be imdemnity for
LANDOWNER BPS OM necessary expenses for necessary and Whatever is the choice
GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH the preservation of the luxurious expenses of the LO, OM has right
Option 1: To acquire To receive indemnity To receive indemnity land and luxurious (should the LO want to of receive indemnity
whatever has been from LO with right of from BPS who is expenses (should the appropriate luxurious for value of materials
built, planted or sown, retention until full primarily liable for LO want to appropriate improvements) and from the BPS only. LO
provided there is payment. materials. the luxurious has no right of removal is not subsidiary liable.
indemnity (which If BPS is insolvent, to improvements) plus even if removal will not
includes value of what proceed against LO damages cause any damage.
has been built, who is subsidiary liable
planted, or sown, plus Option 2: To oblige BP To buy the land or pay If LO chooses Option 1,
value of materials to buy land or S to pay proper rent and liable OM has no right of
used.) proper rent plus to pay damages to LO. removal even if there
damages will be no injury or
Option 2: To oblige To buy land or to pay To receive indemnity damage. If LO
the BP to buy land or S proper rent. from BPS only (LO is chooses Option 2, OM
to pay rent unless the not subsidiary liable) has right to remove
value of the land is with right of retention provided there will be
more than that of the until full payment or no injury or damage.
building or trees
To remove materials if Option 3: To compel To demolish or remove Liable to pay for
there will be no injury BPS to remove or the work done and damages due to
on building or trees demolish work done liable to pay for defects or inferior
and will have material plus damages. damages. quality of the
rent lien against BPS materials.
for the payment of BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH
value of the materials To acquire what has To receive indemnity To receive indemnity
GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH been built, planted, or from LO plus damages. for value of the
Same as above. Same as above. Whatever is the choice sown by paying materials principally
of the LO, the OM: indemnity plus liable to from the BPS and in
1. Loses the pay damages. case BPS is insolvent,
materials in favor subsidiarily from LO
of BPS and BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH
2. Will have no right Same as above. Same as above. No right to recover
to receive indemnity for value of
indemnity from LO the materials from BPS
or BPS nor LO
GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH BAD FAITH
Option 1: To acquire BPS loses what has (Since both BPS and N.B C/O ATTY. AMPIL:
whatever has been been built, planted or OM are in bad faith, 1. The court cannot order or make the choice for the landowner but
built, planted or sown sown plus liable for treat them both as if can compel to make the choice.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 28 of 123

2. In discerning on what rule to apply, ascertain first if the parties FACTS:

are good faith or bad faith. If the characterization is wrong, then Macapagal filed an action against petitioners for recovery of an encroached
everything else is wrong. portion of lot they purchased. Thereafter, they bought another lot adjacent
3. If both are in good faith, 2 options are available. When option 1 is to Macapagal. Upon a relocation survey, they discovered part of it was
chosen, no right to demand rent. If there is still no choice, can being encroached by petitioners. Despite demands, the petitioners refused
ask for rent then. to vacate.
4. Unfair to compel the BPS to buy land if the lands value is more
than the BPS HELD:
5. If the BPS is in bad faith, the LO has 3 options. Prior possession is not always a condition sine que non in ejectment.
6. The necessary expenses are always paid. This is to prevent
unjust enrichment. 54 TECHNOGAS PHIL. V. CA
7. What is to be paid is the FMV at the time of payment. This makes 268 SCRA 5
it a little more expensive.
FACTS:
CASE DIGESTS:: ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE Technogas owned property with buildings and walls. Uy bought an
PROPERTY adjacent property. There was an agreement for Technogas to demolish
wall. Uy filed a complained but the case was dismissed. This prompted
52 PECSON V. CA him to dig a hole along the wall, which led to the partial collapse of the
244 SCRA 407 wall. A case for malicious mischief was filed against Uy.

FACTS:
Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land wherein he built an apartment
complex. Due to his failure to pay for realty taxes, his land was sold in a
public auction and was sold to spouses Nuguid. He moved for the setting
aside of the auction but was denied.
HELD:
Article 448 doesn't apply to a case where the owner of the land is
the BPS who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or
auction.
Nevertheless, the provision therein on indemnity may be applied
by analogy considering that the primary intent of this provision is
to avoid a state of forced ownership.
The current market value of the improvements which should be
made the basis of reimbursement to the builder in good faith
The right to retain the improvements while the corresponding
indemnity is not paid implies the tenancy or possession in fact of
the land on which it is built, planted or sown and retention of
ownership of the improvements, and necessarily, the income
therefrom
53 SPOUSES BENITEZ V. CA
266 SCRA 242
HELD:
1. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can
determine the precise extent or location of the property by merely
examining his proper title.
2. The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner
doesn't militate against its right to claim the status of builder in
good faith.
3. Bad faith isnt imputable to a registered owner of a land when a
part of his building encroaches upon a builders land
55 MANOTOK REALITY V. TECSON
164 SCRA 587
FACTS:
Private respondent in an earlier dispute was held to be a builder in good
faith and the petitioner was adjudged to reimburse with PR having right of
retention. He filed a motion to exercise option but was opposed since the
property were burned during a fire.
HELD:
An issuance of a writ of execution is proper even if private respondent was
adjudged to a builder in good faith or peculiar circumstances supervened.
The option belongs to the landowner to begin with.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 29 of 123

56 SARMIENTO V. AGANA FACTS:

129 SCRA 122 Petitioners mom owned a parcel of land. A bungalow was constructed on a
portion of it. She sold the land to Nicholas, promising that she would also
FACTS: sell the land wherein the bungalow was constructed on. The mother then
Mother-in-law offered a lot for the construction of house by the spouses. leased the land, including the house. Nicholas then introduced
Here comes Sarmiento, alleging himself to be the owner of the land. The improvements. The lease was terminated and not renewed.
trial court ordered Sarmiento to exercise option and there was failure to do
so. The spouses then consigned the amount in court. HELD:
While the right to let property is an incident to the title and possession, a
HELD: person may be a lessor and occupy the position of landlord to his tenant
The landowner cannot refuse both to appropriate or sell the land, and to although he is the not the owner of the premises let.
compel the BPS to remove it from the land on which it is located. He is
entitled to such demolition only when after having chosen to sell the land, The private respondents may not be considered as builders or possessors
the other party fails to pay for the same. in good faith. They knew that their possession is only within the life of the
lease. Consequently, they are not entitled to any indemnity.
57 DEPRA V. DUMLAO
136 SCRA 475 60 SPOUSES DEL CAMPO V. OBESIA
160 SCRA 379
FACTS:
Dumlao owned a land adjacent to Depra. Upon his construction of a house, FACTS:
it encroached on the land of Depra. An unlawful detainer case was filed An action of partition was filed by the plaintiffs. Together with the
against him. A case to quiet title was also instituted wherein Depra was defendants, they were owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land. In the
held to be the owner of the land. survey conducted by the trial court it was found that the defendants house
encroached on the lot of plaintiff.
HELD:
Res judicata doesn't apply wherein the first case was for ejectment and the HELD:
other was for quieting of title. When a co-ownership is terminated by the partition and it was found that
the house of defendants overlaps a portion of land of plaintiffs, which
58 BALLATAN V. CA defendants built in good faith, Article 448 can still be applied.
304 SCRA 34
61 IGNAO V. IAC
FACTS: 193 SCRA 17
Petitioner constructed a house and found out that Go was encroaching on
her land. A relocation survey was then conducted and it was found out FACTS:
that her total land area was decreased while the land of Yao increased. An action for partition was filed but this didn't prosper. A case was then
filed alleging that the house was occupying more than the share in the lot.
HELD:
Where a person had no knowledge that he encroached on his neighbors HELD:
lot, he is deemed a builder in good faith until the time the latter is When co-owned estate is partitioned, it is the co-owner whose portion is
informed of his encroachment upon the latters property. encroached upon who has the option to sell that portion or buy the
improvement.
59 GEMINIANO V. CA
259 SCRA 344 62 MWSS V. CA
143 SCRA 623

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 30 of 123

3. The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the

FACTS: person who is in the best position to cultivate the same
The Dagupan City filed a case against petitioner for the recovery of 4. Since after all, it cannot be said with certainty from whom the soil
ownership and possession of the Dagupan Waterworks System. MWSS came
contended that through a law, it was vested ownership over all waterworks
systems. ACCRETION ON THE BANK OF A LAKE AND ON THE BANK OF AN
ISLAND FORMED IN A NON-NAVIGABLE RIVER
HELD: Belong to the owners of the estate to which they have been added
Possessor in bad faith is not entitled to the removal of useful
improvements. ACCRETION ON A SEA BANK
Still belongs to the public domain
ACCESSION NATURAL
EFFECT OF PUBLIC SERVICE CONSTRUCTIONS OR EASEMENTS ON
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers RIVER BANKS
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects Public service constructionthe owner of the land is no longer the
of the current of the waters. (336) riparian owner and the government which will own the accretion
Easement for the benefit of navigation, floatage, fishing or
FORMS OF ACCESSION NATURAL salvageright still subsists because in easements, the owner of
1. Alluvium the serviant estate doesn't lose his ownership over the portion
2. Avulsion occupied
3. Change of course of rivers
4. Formation of islands NOTE:
1. Loss of alluvium not affected by registration under the LRA
ALLUVIUM 2. Registered land is not protected from the process of accretion
The soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of
rivers, and gradually received as an effect of the current of the THE ALLUVIAL DEPOSIT ISNT AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED
waters UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
The alluvial deposit may still be lost through acquisitive
ACCRETION prescription
Process by which the soil is deposited Remember the source of ownership is law
A broader term than alluvium
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not
REQUISITES OF ALLUVIUM acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or
1. The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. (367)
2. Cause is the current of river
a. Cannot be done artificially or man-made causes POND
3. That the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank A body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a puddle
of river and smaller than a lake, or a like body of water with a small outlet
4. The owner of the adjacent lot will own the increase
LAGOON
REASONS WHY ALLUVIUM IS GRANTED THE RIPARIAN OWNER A small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and not very deep, fed by
1. To compensate him for the loss he may suffer floods, the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the
2. To compensate him because the property is subject to land
encumbrances and legal easements

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 31 of 123

LAKE gradual seen

A body of water formed by the depressions of the earth, ordinarily
fresh water, coming from rivers, brooks, or springs, and Soil cannot be identified Identifiable or verifiable
connected with the sea by them
Belongs to the owner of the Belongs to the owner from whose
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent property to which it is attached property it was detached
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 Soil must be deposited adjacent the
segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided river bed
that he removes the same within two years. (368a)
Art. 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the
AVULSION
waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be
The process whereby the current of a river, creek, or torrent
cast, if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such
segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and
owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in
transfers it to another estate
gathering them or putting them in a safe place. (369a)
The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or
annexation to the land of another, suddenly, and by the
NOTE: The six-month period given in Article 460 should be considered
perceptible action of the water
only a condition precedent. The recovery period must be made within the
period for prescription.
REQUISITES OF AVULSION
1. Sudden and violent
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
2. Land is identifiable and known
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners
3. Owner of the land where the land was detached retains
whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the
ownershipsubject to remove land within 2 years
area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value
N.B: it doesn't matter if it adds or lands on top. It also doesn't matter if
thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area
there were trees attached to the detached land.
occupied by the new bed. (370a)
RIVER
REQUISITES FOR ARTICLE 461 TO APPLY
A natural stream of water, of greater volume than a creek or
1. The change must be sudden in order that the old river bed may be
rivulet flowing, in a more or less permanent bed or channel,
identified
between defined banks or walls with a current which may either
2. The changing of the course must be more or less permanent and
be continuous in one direction or affected by the ebb and flow of
not temporary overflooding of anothers land
the tide
3. The change of the river bed must be a natural one caused by
natural forces
CREEK
4. There must be a definite abandonment by the government
A small stream less than a river
5. The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not completely
dry up or disappear
TORRENT
Violent, rushing or turbulent stream
CHANGE IN THE COURSE OF RIVERS
1. Owner of new bed will own the old river bed
ALLUVIUM AVULSION 2. Adjacent owners has the right to acquire the old land
The deposit of the soil here is Sudden or abrupt process may be

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 32 of 123

3. If new owners refuse to sell, their refusal would be contrary to a. Within the territorial waters or maritime zone or
lawthe adjacent owners have a preemptive right over the old jurisdiction of the PhilippinesSTATE
bed b. Outside the jurisdictionthe first country to occupy
a. In case of the government, it has the right to return the effectively
river to its former coursefollowing the Water Code 2. If formed on lakes, navigable or floatable riversSTATE
3. If formed on non-navigable or non-floatable rivers
Art. 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, a. If nearer in margin to one bank, owner of nearer margin
opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of is sole owner
public dominion. (372a) b. If equidistant, the island shall be divided longitudinally in
halves
RULE IS NEW RIVER BED IS ON PRIVATE ESTATE
Even if the new bed is on private property the bed becomes NAVIGABLE OR FLOATABLE RIVER
property of public dominion, just as the old bed had been of public If useful for floatage and commerce, whether the tides affect the
dominion before the abandonment water or not

Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into
branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the
owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a
portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. (374)
FORMATION OF ISLAND BY THE BRANCHING OFF OF A RIVER
1. May be isolated from the rest
2. Or may be separated from the rest
THREE PARTS OF A RIVER
1. Water
2. River bed
3. River bank
Art. 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. (371a)
Art. 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. (373a)
RULE TO FOLLOW IF A NEW ISLAND IS FORMED BETWEEN THE
OLDER ISLAND AND THE BANK
The owner of the older island is the riparian owner and if the new
island is nearer in margin the older isaldn, the owner of the older
island should be considered also the owner of the new island
CASE DIGESTS: ACCESSION NATURAL
63 VIAJAR V. CA
168 SCRA 405
FACTS:
Spouses Ladrido were owners of a registered land. Spouses Teh were also
owners of a registered land. The latter sold the land to Viajar. During a
relocation survey, it was found out that the land was being occupied by
Ladrido. It was found out also that the 2 parcels of land were separated by
the riverone portion was being possessed by the defendant together with
the old river bed.
HELD:
Registration under the Torrens system doesn't protect the riparian owner
against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual
changes in the course of an adjoining stream.
64 AGUSTIN V. IAC
187 SCRA 218

OWNERSHIP OF ISLANDS FACTS:

1. If formed on the sea

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Cagayan River separates Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east.
Agustin was the owner of the eastern lot while the western lot was owned
by the private respondent. Through the years, the Cagayan river eroded
the eastern portion depositing the alluvion to the western portion. After a
big flood, the river cut through the lot of private respondent, whose lands
were transferred to the eastern lot. The private respondent tried to
cultivate but they were stopped by the men of Agustin.
HELD:
Accretion belongs to the riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial
deposits were made.
65 BINALAY V. MANALO
195 SCRA 374
FACTS:
Judge Taccad owned a parcel of landon the west, bordering on the
Cagayan River, on the east, the national road. The western portion would
occasionally go under the waters and reappear during the dry season.
Manalo purchased the land. A relocation survey was conducted during the
rainy season, so the survey didn't cover the submerged land. The sketch
would show that the river branches through the west and east, leaving a
strip of land. The land was then surveyed into two 2 lots. One of these is
being claimed by Manalo through accretion.
HELD:
According to the Law of Waters, the natural bed or channel of a creek or
river is the ground covered by its waters during the highest floods.
This being the case, the subject land couldn't have been sold to Manalo,
being part of the public domain.
66 REPUBLIC V. CA
132 SCRA 514
FACTS:
Respondents sought the registration of land adjacent to their fishpond.
They are the registered owners of parcel of lot bordering on the Bocaue
and Meycauyan rivers. The lower and appellate court allowed registration
but this was opposed by the government.
HELD:
There is no accretion if it is caused by man-made causes.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 33 of 123
67 REPUBLIC V. CA
131 SCRA 532
FACTS:
Subject land was 20 meters away from the shores of Laguna de Bay. It
was owned by Benedicto del Rio. After his death, it was acquired by
Santos del Rio. Private oppositors sought permission and obtained the
same to construct duck houses. They violated agreement by consructing
residential houses. Santos then sought to register the land which was
opposed. The oppositors was able to obtain sales application on the land.
The director of Lands alleged that since a portion of the land is submerged
in water 4 to 5 months, then it forms part of the public domain.
HELD:
According to the Law of Waters, the natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds,
or pools is the covered by their waters when at their highest ordinary
depthregular, common, natural, which occurs almost or most of the time
during the year.
Laguna de Bay is a lake and that part around it which becomes covered
with water 4 to 5 months a year, not due to tidal action, but due to rains
cannot be considered as part of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay nor as a
foreshore land. Property not being so, the land is registrable.
68 HEIRS OF NAVARRO V. IAC
268 SCRA 74
FACTS:
Pascual filed an application for lease of a foreshore land. Such was denied.
Navarro then sought approval for fishpond application which was
consequently approved. Pascual then later sought registration of land, he
claims to be from accretion. His application was denied for land sought to
be registered is public domain.
MANILA BAY
N
HELD:
Accretion through the action of the sea forms part of the public domain.
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 34 of 123

69 GRANDE V. CA FACTS:
5 SCRA 524 A parcel of land was dug by the government for the construction of a canal
to streamline the river. Baes eventually bought the land, which was
subdivided into 3 parcels. The middle parcel covered the canal. The
FACTS: government gave him another equivalent parcel as compensation. After
Petitioners were the registered owners of a parcel of land with the Cagayan resurvey, it was discovered that there were errors. New TCTs were issued
River at the NE boundary. Petitioners instituted then an action for quieting to represent the enlargements. Government opposed as the lots were
of title against respondents over the alluvium in the NE boundary. allegedly unlawfully enlarged. Baes averred that he should own dried up
land as the creek was discovered to the canal in his property.
HELD:
The alluvium is not automatically registered. HELD:
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss
70 REYNANTE V. CA of his property due to natural causes, all the more reason to compensate
207 SCRA 794 him when the change in the course of river is effected through artificial
means.
FACTS:
Petitioner was the tenant over a fishpond. During his tenancy, he 72 JAGUALING V. CA
constructed a nipa hut and took care of the sasahan. This parcel of land 194 SCRA 607
was located between the fishpond and Meycauyan river. After the death of
the original landlord, heirs made petitioner sign an agreement surrendering FACTS:
the fishpond for consideration. when he was being asked to leave Eduave owned a parcel of land which later was eroded due to a typhoon
consequently, he refused to do so. and through the movement of land deposit. Eduave granted defendants to
plant corn and bananas. She also hired a surveyor to put monuments.
HELD: She also paid taxes. Here comes petitioner who opposes the claim of
Failure to register the acquired alluvial deposit subjects it to ownership by ownership claiming the typhoon caused the formation of island, the same
acquisitive prescription. they occupied for 15 years now.

70 RONQUILLO V. CA HELD:
195 SCRA 433 The island formed belongs to the owner of the land with the nearest
margin.
FACTS:
Plaintiff owned a titled lot adjacent to a dried up land of Estero Calubcub. If the riparian owner fails to assert his claim, it could be open to adverse
Roldan occupied the titled lot. After a relocation survey, it was found out possession.
that petitioner was occupying a portion of land and the dried up land of
Estero Calubcub. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY

HELD: Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different

The rules on alluvion don't apply to man-made or artificial accretions, nor owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form
to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage a single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the
systems. accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
(375)
71 BAES V. CA
224 SCRA 562 ADJUNCTION

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Process by virtue of which 2 movable things belonging to different
owners are united in such a way that they form a single object
DIFFERENT KINDS OF ADJUNCTION
1. Inclusion/engraftment
2. Soldadura/soldering
3. Escritura/writing
4. Pintura/painting
5. Weaving/tejido
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. (376)
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.
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and
lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment
shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377)
TEST TO DETERMINE WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL AND WHICH IS THE
ACCESSORY
1. That to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its
use, or perfection
2. That of greater value
3. That of greater volume
4. That which has greater merits
SPECIAL RULE
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and
lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment
shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377)
IF THE ADJUNCTION CONCERNS THREE OR MORE THINGS
Determine which really is the principal
All the rest should be considered as accessories
Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without
injury, their respective owners may demand their separation.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 35 of 123
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 former may demand its separation, even
though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer
some injury. (378)
RULE WHERE THERE CAN BE SEPARATION WITHOUT INJURY
There is no real adjunction
In the second paragraph, if the accessory is much more precious
than the principal, then there can be removal although with 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.
If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the
knowledge and without the objection of the other, their respective
rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith.
(379a)
Art. 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without his
consent has a right to an indemnity, he may demand that this
consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all
other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof,
according to expert appraisal. (380)
HOW INDEMNITY IS PAID
Either by delivery of the thing equal in kind and value OR
Payment of price as appraised by experts
This rule is applicable if there was no consent of the owner
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
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 36 of 123

him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused. Acquires the accessory,
(381) indemnifying the owner of the
accessory for the value thereof.
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 confused, the Except: when value of accessory is
rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the much more precious than the
preceding article. principal thing
Loses the accessory but has a right
to indemnity for the value of the
accessory.
Has a right to demand separation
even if it causes injury to principal
thing.

If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, Except: When still separable, may May demand separation.
he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, demand separation. (no adjunction
besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to anyway)
the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed. (382)
B. OWNER OF PRINCIPAL IN
Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in GOOD FAITH BUT OWNER OF
whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall ACCESSORY IN BAD FAITH
appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying Loses the thing and has liability for
the owner of the material for its value. Acquires the accessory and has a damages.
right to indemnity for damages he
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of may have suffered.
more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing C. OWNER OF PRINCIPAL IN
to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or BAD FAITH AND OWNER OF
demand indemnity for the material. ACCESSORY IN GOOD FAITH

If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the Pay for the accessory. Option 1: May demand the owner
material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself of the principal to pay for the value
without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter of the accessory plus damages.
that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the
damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the Must separate even the thing is Option 2: Demand separation even
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the destroyed. if it causes the destruction of the
latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than principal thing plus damages.
that of the material. (383a) D. BOTH IN BAD FAITH
Art. 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly Same as if both are in Good Faith
appreciated. (n)
MIXTURE
OWNER WHO CAUSED MIXTURE OWNER OF THE THING MIXED
ACCESSION CHARTS FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY
(OWNER #1) INTO (OWNER #2)
C/O LUIS MARTIN TAN
A. BOTH ARE IN GOOD FAITH,
MIXTURE IS EITHER BY CHANCE
ADJUNCTION/CONJUNCTION (ART. 466 & 469-470) OR CHOICE
RIGHTS OF OWNER OF RIGHTS OF OWNER OF
PRINCIPAL ACCESSORY Each owner acquires a right Each owner acquires a right
A. BOTH ARE IN GOOD FAITH proportional to the part belonging to proportional to the part belonging
him, bearing in mind the value of to him, bearing in mind the value of

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

the things mixed or confused.
B. OWNER #1 IN BAD FAITH,
OWNER #2 IN GOOD FAITH
Loses the thing mixed or confused
plus liable to pay damages to owner
#2.
*** not mentioned in the law, my
thoughts only ***
C. OWNER #2 IN BAD FAITH,
OWNER #1 IN GOOD FAITH
Does owner #2 lose ownership and
Owner #1 acquire the thing mixed
into?
SPECIFICATION
OWNER OF MATERIAL
A. BOTH IN GOOD FAITH
Right to indemnification for the
value of the material.
Except: Material more precious than
transformed thing
Option #1: Appropriate the new
thing to himself, indemnifying the
builder for his work.
Option #2: Demand indemnity for
the material.
B. OWNER OF MATERIAL IN
GOOD FAITH AND BUILDER IN
BAD FAITH
Option #1: Appropriate the work to
himself without paying indemnity.
Except: For artistic or scientific
reasons, the thing has a value
considerably higher than the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
the things mixed or confused.
Acquires the thing mixed plus
entitled to damages.
BUILDER
Shall appropriate the thing thus
transformed as his own,
indemnifying the owner of the
material for its value.
To be indemnified.
Appropriate the same after
indemnity for material.
Loses his work.
Must pay indemnity.
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 37 of 123
material.
Option #2: Demand indemnity for Must pay indemnity.
material plus damages.
QUIETING OF TITLE
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may
be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon title to real property or any interest therein.
TWO ACTIONS ARE BEING REFERRED TO IN THESE PROVISIONS
1. REMEDIALaction to remove cloud or to quiet title
2. PREVENTIVEaction to prevent a future cloud or doubt
EXISTENCE OF A CLOUD
The cloud on title exists because
1. Of an instrument or record or claim or encumberance or
proceeding
2. Which is apparently valid or effective
3. But is in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or
unenforceable or extinguished or barred by extinctive prescription
4. And may be prejudicial to the title
RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE CLOUDS ELIMINATED
1. That their respective rights be determined
2. Not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one
who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the
other
3. But also for the benefit of both
4. So that he who has a right would see every cloud of doubt over
the property displaced
5. And he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements
he may desire, to use and even to abuse the property as he
deems best
REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE ACTION
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 38 of 123

1. The prevention of litigation

2. The protection of the true title and possession
3. The promotion of right and justice
N.B: the nature of the action for quieting of title is an action in personam
DOES AN ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE PRESCRIBE?
It depends
1. If the plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action doesn't
prescribe
2. If the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the action may
prescribe. The period would be either 10 or 30 years. It may also
be barred by laches.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title
are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this
Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a
cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the
Supreme Court shall promulgated.
N.B C/O ATTY. AMPIL:
Rule 63 on Declaratory relief and other similar reliefs
RUINOUS BUILDINGS AND TREES IN DANGER OF FALLING

Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in
interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to
action. He need not be in possession of said property. execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.

NECESSARY FOR TITLE OF PLAINTIFF If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the
Plaintiff must have either equitable or legal ownership over the administrative authorities may order the demolition of the
property structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure
public safety. (389a)
IF PLAINTIFF IN POSSESSION IF PLAINTIFF NOT IN
POSSESSION Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to
Period doesn't prescribe Period prescribes cause damage to the land or tenement of another or to travelers
over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged
Only right is to remove or prevent Aside from being given the right to to fell and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done at
cloud. remove or prevent cloud, he may his expense by order of the administrative authorities. (390a)
also bring an ordinary action for
ejectment, publiciana or Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
reinvidicatoria within the proper specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen
prescriptive periods years from the completion of the structure, the same should
collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same
has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of
extinctive prescription. materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any
violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses contractor.
that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver
N.B: General rule based on equity of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in
the preceding paragraph.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 39 of 123

The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse 74 SIARI VALLEY ESTATE V. LUCASAN
of the building. (n) 97 PHIL 987

FACTS:
ENUMERATION OF LIABILITIES Cattle were driven to the adjoining ranch and the owner of the cattle
1. Engineer or architect sought to recover the same.
a. Liable for damages if within a PERIOD OF 15 YEARS
FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE, the same HELD:
should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and One who has stole a part of the stolen money must have taken the larger
specifications or due to the defects of the ground sum lost by the offended party.
b. Shall be solidarily liable for defects that may arise during
construction if they supervised the same If the commingling of two things is made in bad faith, the one responsible
2. Contractor for it will lose his share.
a. Shall be liable for the same period on account of defects
in the construction or the use of materials of inferior 75 AGUIRRE V. PHENG
quality furnished by him, or due to violations of the terms 18 SCRA 18
of the contract
FACTS:
NOTES: Aldabas sold to Aguirre a steel tank but the latter wasn't able to take
Acceptance of the building doesn't constitute a waiver of any possession. Then the steel tank was sold by Aguirre to Gabriel who
cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the subsequently sold it to Leonora and Company and eventually was sold to
preceding paragraph NASSO. Aguirre notified NASSO of its claim of ownership and thus, it
Action must be brought within 10 years following the collapse of withheld payment to Leonora. In both actions, Aguirre was held to be the
the building owner and entitled to P900.

CASE DIGESTS: ACCRETION CONTINUA WITH RESPECT TO HELD:

MOVABLE PROPERTY There is accession by specification. Aguirre should reimburse Leonora for
being a builder in good faith.
73 SANTOS V. BERNABE
54 PHIL 19 76 SAPTO V. FABIANA
103 PHIL 683
FACTS:
Both Santos and Tiongson deposited in defendants warehouse palay with FACTS:
the same grade and quality. Their palay didn't have markings to Sapto brothers sold to Fabiana a parcel of land. This parcel was inherited
distinguish it from one another. Tiongson then filed a complaint against from their father. The possession was then transferred to Fabiana and
defendant. A writ of attachment was then issued which included palay that remained to possess when widow and children of Samuel filed an action to
was owned by Santos. recover the land.

HELD: HELD:
There are no means to distinguish the palay owned by Santos and An action to quiet title doesn't prescribe when the land is in possession of
Tiongson. This being the case, each owner shall acquire a right in the the plaintiff.
mixture proportionate to the part belonging to him, according to the value
of the things mixed or commingled. 77 TITONG V. CA

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

287 SCRA 102
FACTS:
Titong filed an action for quieting of title over a 20000 hectare parcel of
land. The land was adjudged in favor of respondents Lacerio.
HELD:
The ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must be an
instrument, record, claim or encumberance or proceeding.
78 PINGOL V. CA
226 SCRA 118
FACTS:
Pingol owned a parcel of land, half of its undivided portion he sold
Donasco. Later, the land was separated from the mother lot. Donasco
died, leaving a large unpaid balance for the land. The heirs filed an action
for specific performance. Pingol then was asking for a larger amount and
didn't want to accept payment of balance.
HELD:
Although the complaint filed was an action for specific performance, it was
actually an action to quiet title. A cloud has been cast on the title. Despite
the fact that title has been conferred to them through the sale, the
petitioners refused to receive the tender of payment being made by them.
79 GALLAR V. HUSSAIN
20 SCRA 186
FACTS:
Teodoro sold to Chichirita with right to repurchase. Former failed to
repuchase the property but the same was purchased by his sister.
Thereafter, Graciana transferred her rights to Gallar in exchange of a cow.
HELD:
This action is not for specific performance but to quiet title, to remove the
cloud cast on appellees ownership as a result of appellants refusal to
recognize the sale made by their predecessor. And as the plaintiff is in
possession, the action is imprescriptible.
80 VDA DE AVILES V. CA
264 SCRA 473
FACTS:
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 40 of 123
Aviles was the owner of this parcel of land and was in actual possession.
Carlos, with the intent of creating a color of title over the land, constructed
bamboo fences and moved the earthen dikes. This prompted the owner to
file an action for quieting of title.
HELD:
Boundary disputes are not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title.
81 OBLEA V. CA
244 SCRA 101
FACTS:
Melencios and Wicos co-owned a parcekl of land. This was allegedly
bought by Esteban from a certain Ramos, the alleged administratix of
Melencio and Pura Melencios estate. Oblea was leasing then a building on
the subject lot and eventually bought it from Estebans son. Esteban then
filed an ejectment case to which he won. The registered owners then sold
the land to Oblea and they instituted an action for quieting of title against
Esteban.
HELD:
An action for quieting of title before the RTC doesn't divest the MTC of its
jurisdiction to hear the case for ejectment.
Further, the subsequent acquisition of ownership of the property is not a
supervening event that will bar the execution of the judgment in a case of
unlawful detainer.
82 GAPACAN V. OMIPET
387 SCRA 383
FACTS:
Gapacan was the primitive possessor of a parcel of land. He declared the
land for taxation purposes. He had 2 children. His son tried his luck in the
mines and his sister was left to take care of the father. Later, when the
son returned, he executed an affidavit of transfer of real property,
allegedly thumbmarked by his sisters husband. Since then, his family
cultivated the property. When his sister tried to cultivate the land, an
action for forcible entry was filed against her.
HELD:
An action to quiet title may be brought when there exists a cloud on the
title to real property or any interest therein.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
83 ROBLES V. CA
328 SCRA 97
FACTS:
An action for quieting of title was filed by petitioner against Santos. The
subject land was inherited from their father. Their brother was able to
mortgage the land and upon failure to pay, the REM was foreclosed. They
later knew about the REM and foreclosure and subsequent sale to Santos.
HELD:
A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of other co-owners
absent any clear indication of repudiation of co-ownership.
An action to quiet title is a common law remedy for the removal of any
cloud or doubt or uncertaintiy on the title to real property.
84 METROPOLITAN BANK V. ALEJO
364 SCRA 812
FACTS:
There is an existing action to nullify the TCT of the spouses. During the
pendency, they obtained from the bank a loan secured by a REM over the
subject land. Upon their failure to pay, the REM was foreclosed. Upon the
registration, the bank was informed of the decision to declare the TCT null
and void.
HELD:
A cloud on title is a semblance of title which appears in some legal form
but which is in fact unfounded. In this case, the judgment cannot be
considered as a cloud on petitioners title or interest over the real property
covered by the TCT, which doesn't even have a semblance of being a title.
85 SPOUSES BENITO V. SAQUITAN-RUIZ
394 SCRA 250
FACTS:
The spouses sold to Ruiz a parcel of land but upon repeated demands, they
failed to deliver the land. It was known that they had the land subdivided
into portions to the prejudice of Ruiz. This prompted Ruiz to file a
complaint for specific performance and declaration of nullity with damages.
HELD:
If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully registered parcel of
land is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveyance doesn't
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 41 of 123
prescribe. A petition for quieting title although essentially an action for
reconveyance, should not be dismissed on the ground of prescription, if it
is alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
86 NAKPIL AND SONS V. CA
144 SCRA 596
FACTS:
PBA commissioned petitioner to construct building. In a very strong
earthquake, severe damage was suffered by the building. PBA sued for
damages. Expert witness attested that the building was constructed and
planned defectively.
HELD:
One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability
for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a
third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible, intervenes to
precipitate the loss.
As already discussed, the destruction was not purely an act of God. Truth
to tell hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity were hardly affected by
the earthquake. Only one thing spells out the fatal difference; gross
negligence and evident bad faith, without which the damage would not
have occurred.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and
considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, We
deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby
impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the
exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p.
10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION
(P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception of
attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest
charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being
payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such
finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon
afore-mentioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the
defendant and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta).
CO-OWNERSHIP

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
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. (392)
CO-OWNERSHIP
State where an undivided thing or right belongs to two or more
persons
Right of common dominion which 2 or more persons have over a
spiritual, ideal part of a thing which is not physically divided
SOURCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP
1. By law
2. By contract
3. By chance
4. By occupation or occupancy
5. By succession or will
CHARACTERISTICS OF CO-OWNERSHIP
There must be more than one subject or owner
There is one physical whole divioded into ideal shares
Each ideal share is definite in amount but is not physically
segregated from the rest
Regarding the physical whole, each co-owner must respect each
other in the common use, enjoyment, or preservation of the
physical whole
Regarding the ideal share, each co-owner holds almost absolute
control over the same
It is not a juridical person
There is no mutual agency
There is no extinguishment upon the death of any co-owner
A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owners
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. (393a)
SHARES IN BENEFITS OR CHARGES
Share is proportional to the interest of each
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 42 of 123
Contrary stipulation is void
Each co-owner shares proportionately in the accretion or alluvium
of the property
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. (394a)
EACH CO-OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THE
PURPOSE INTENDED
The interest of the co-ownership must be impaired or prejudiced
And the co-owners must not be prevented from using it
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment. (n)
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. (395a)
EXPENSES FOR PRESERVATION
A co-owner has a right to compel the others to share in the
expenses of preservation, even if incurred without prior
notification to them but he must notify if practicable
Covers only necessary expenses
A CO-OWNER MAY EXEMPT HIMSELF
By renouncing so much of his undivided share as may be
equivalent to the share of the expenses and taxes
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. (n)
CONSENT REQUIREMENTS

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
1. ACTS OF PRESERVATIONno consent requirement
2. ACTS OF ADMINISTRATIONfinancial majority
3. ACTS OF ALTERATIONall must consent
Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to
different owners, if the titles of ownership do not specify the terms
under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses and
there exists no agreement on the subject, the following rules shall
be observed:
(1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things
used in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the
owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;
(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of
his story; the floor of the entrance, front door, common yard and
sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense
of all the owners pro rata;
(3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be
maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the
exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the first
to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all, except
the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first story; and
so on successively. (396)
PERPENDICULAR OWNERSHIP
Different stories belong to different owners
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)
ALTERATIONS
1. Change which is more or less permanent
2. Which changes the use of the thing
3. Which prejudices the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by
others
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 43 of 123
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)
NOTE: An act of administration pertains to management and useful
expenses
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 alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership. (399)
RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE IDEAL OR PROPORTIONATE SHARE
Deals nto with the right to the whole property but only with the
right to the IDEAL or metaphysical share of each co-owner
RULES REGARDING THE IDEAL SHARE
1. Each co-owner must have full ownership of his part and his share
of the fruits and benefits
2. He may alienate, assign or mortgage his ideal share but of course
without prejudice to the exercise of the others of their right of
legal redemption
3. He may even substitute another person for the enjoyment except
when personal rights are involved
4. He may exempt himself from necessary expenses and taxes by
renouncing part of his interest in the co-ownership

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 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. (400a)
WHEN A CO-OWNER MAY NOT SUCCESSFULLY DEMAND A
PARTITION
1. If by agreement, for a period not exceeding 10 years, partition is
prohibited
2. When partition is prohibited by the donor or testator, for a period
not exceeding 20 years
3. When partition is prohibited by law
4. When a physical partition would render the property unserviceable
but in this case, the property may be allotted to one of the co-
owners
5. When the legal nature of the common property doesn't allow
partition
PROHIBITION TO PARTITION BECAUSE OF AN AGREEMENT
1. Period must not extend more than 10 years
2. If it exceeds 10 years, the stipulation is valid insofar as the first
10 years is concerned
3. There can be an extension but only after the original period has
ended
4. After the first extension, there can be another, and so on
indefinitely, as long as for each extension, the period of 10 years
is not exceeded
PRESCRIPTION IN FAVOR OF A CO-OWNER AGAINST THE OTHER
CO-OWNERS
1. Clear and unequivocal act of repudiation of the co-ownership
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 44 of 123
2. Act of repudiation must be made known
3. Clear and convincing evidence
4. Other requirements of prescriptionopen, continuous, exclusive,
notorious, adverse, public possession in the concept of owner
Art. 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article,
the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the thing
owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for
the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be
terminated in accordance with Article 498. (401a)
Art. 496. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties
or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules
of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. (402)
PARTITION MAY BE MADE EXTRAJUDICIALLY OR JUDICIALLY. IF
THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, ONE CAN FILE FOR PARTITION. THE
COURT WILL ASCERTAIN THE FOLLOWING:
1. Is there co-ownership?
2. Are they the co-owners?
3. What are their respective shares?
4. What would be the allocation?
Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part
in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its
being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn
any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in
case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to
prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor
to maintain its validity. (403)
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.
(404)
JURIDICAL DISSOLUTION
1. First, give the whole to one of the co-owners who will now be
required to indemnify the rest
2. If this is not agreed upon, there must be a sale
Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not
prejudice third persons, who shall retain the rights of mortgage,
servitude or any other real rights belonging to them before the

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
division was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons
against the co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition. (405)
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for
benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made.
Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of
his negligence or fraud. (n)
EFFECTS OF PARTITION
1. Mutual accounting for benefits
2. Mutual reimbursement for expenses
3. Indemnity for damages in case of negligence or fraud
4. Reciprocal warranty for defects of title or quality
5. Each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession
of his part allotted to him for the entire period during which the
co-possession lasted
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects
of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the other co-
owners. (n)
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of
redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any
of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is
grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable
one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of
redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they
may respectively have in the thing owned in common. (1522a)
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be
exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by
the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The
deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given
written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining
owners. (1524a)
Art. 1647. If a lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property,
the following persons cannot constitute the same without proper
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 45 of 123
authority: the husband with respect to the wife's paraphernal real
estate, the father or guardian as to the property of the minor or
ward, and the manager without special power. (1548a)
Art. 1648. Every lease of real estate may be recorded in the
Registry of Property. Unless a lease is recorded, it shall not be
binding upon third persons. (1549a)
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the
following cases:
(1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as
acts of administration;
(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already
in existence at the time the agency was constituted;
(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to
renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections
to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already
acquired;
(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;
(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an
immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a
valuable consideration;
(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those
made to employees in the business managed by the agent;
(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent
and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are
under administration;
(8) To lease any real property to another person for more than
one year;
(9) To bind the principal to render some service without
compensation;
(10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;
(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
(12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;
(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
(14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the
agency;
(15) Any other act of strict dominion. (n)
CONDOMINIUM ACT
SECTION 2. A Condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a
separate interests in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial
building or in an industrial estate and an undivided interests in common,
directly and indirectly, in the land, or the appurtenant interest of their
respective units in the common areas.
SECTION 3. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
a) "Condominium" means a condominium as defined in the next preceding
section.
b) "Unit" means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of
independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces
located in one or more floors (or parts of floors) in a building or buildings
and such accessories as may be appended thereto; provided, that in the
case of an industrial estate wherein the condominium project consists of
several buildings, plants and factories may, by themselves, be considered
separately as individual units as herein defined."
c) "Project" means the entire parcel of real property divided or to be
divided in condominiums, including all structures thereon.
d) "Industrial Estate or Estate" means a certain tract of land which is
subdivided and developed primarily for industrial purposes and which
usually includes provisions for basic infrastructure facilities and common
services such as roads, water, electricity, drainage and waste disposal
system.
e) "Common areas" means the entire project except all units separately
granted or held or reserved.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 46 of 123
f) "To divide" real property means to divide the ownership thereof or other
interests therein by conveying one or more condominium therein but less
than the whole thereof.
SECTION 4. The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to
be divided into condominium only if there shall be recorded in the Register
of Deeds of the province or city in which the property lies, and duly
annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the land, if the latter
had been patented or registered under either the Land Registration or
Cadastral Acts, an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among
others, the following:
a) Description of the land on which the building or buildings and
improvements are to be located;
b) Description of the building or buildings, stating the number of storeys
and basement, the number of units and their accessories, if any;
c) Description of the common areas and facilities;
d) A statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be
acquired by the purchased in the separate units and the common areas of
the condominium projects. Where title to or to appurtenant interests in the
common areas is to be held by a condominium corporation, a statement to
this effect shall be included;
e) A certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than
those executing the master deed, as well as of all registered holders of any
lien or encumbrances on the property, that they consent to the registration
of the deed;
f) The following plans shall be appended to the deed as integral parts
thereof:
1. A survey plan of the land included in the project, unless a survey plan of
the same property had previously been filed in said office;
2. A diagrammatic floor plan of the building or buildings each unit, its
relative location and approximate dimensions.
g) Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law, morals, or public policy
regarding the right of any condominium owner to alienate or dispose off his
condominium.
h) The enabling or master deed may be amended or revoked upon
registration of an instrument executed by a simple majority of the

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
registered owners of the property: Provided. That in a condominium project
exclusively for either residential or commercial use, simple majority shall
be on a per unit of ownership basis and that in the case of mixed use,
simple majority shall be on a floor area of ownership basis: Provided,
further, That prior notifications to all registered owners shall be submitted
to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and the city/municipal
engineer for approval before it can be registered. Until registration of a
revocation, the provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to such
property.
SECTION 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or
store or other space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the
undivided interest in the common areas or in a proper case, the
membership or share holdings in the condominium corporation: provided,
however. That where the common areas in the condominium project are
held by the owners of separate units as co-owners hereof, no condominium
unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons other than Filipino
citizens or corporation at least 60% of the capital stock of which belong to
Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the
common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no
transfer or conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of
the appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause
the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by
existing laws.
SECTION 6. Unless otherwise expressly provided in the enabling or master
deed or the declaration of restrictions, the incidents of a condominium
grant are as follows:
a) the boundary of the unit granted are the interior surfaces of the
perimeter walls, floors, ceiling, windows and doors thereof: provided, that
in the case of an industrial estate condominium projects, wherein whole
buildings, plants or factories may be considered as unit defined under
section 3 (b) hereof, the boundary of a unit shall include the outer surfaces
of the perimeter walls of said buildings, plants or factories. The following
are not part of the unit: bearing walls, columns, floors, roofs, foundations,
and other common structural elements of the buildings; lobbies, stairways,
hall ways and other areas of common use, elevator equipment and shafts,
central heating, central refrigeration and central air conditioning
equipment, reservoir, tanks, pumps and other central services and
facilities, pipes, ducts, flues, chutes, conduits wires and other utility
installations, wherever located, except the outlets thereof when located
within the unit."
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 47 of 123
b) There shall pass with the unit, as an appurtenant thereof, an exclusive
casement for the use of the air space encompasses by the boundaries of
the unit as it exists at any particular time and as the unit may lawfully be
altered or reconstructed from time to time. Such easement shall be
automatically terminated in any air space upon destruction of the units as
to render it untenantable.
c) Unless otherwise provided, the common areas are held in common by
the holders of units, in equal share one for each unit.
d) A non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and support through the
common areas in appurtenant to each unit and the common areas are
subject to such easement.
e) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to paint, repaint,
tile, wax, paper or otherwise refinish and decorate the inner surfaces of the
walls, ceilings, floors, windows and doors hounding his own unit: provided,
that in the case of an industrial estate condominium unit, such right may
be exercised over the external surfaces of the said unit.
f) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to mortgage,
pledge or encumber his condominium and to have the same appraised
independently of the other condominium owner.
g) Each condominium owner has also the absolute right to sell or dispose
of his condominium unless the master deed contains a requirements that
the property be first offered to the condominium owners within a
reasonable period of time before the same is offered to outside parties;
SECTION 7. Except as provided in the following section, the common areas
shall remain undivided, and there shall be no judicial partition thereof.
SECTION 8. Where several persons own condominium in a condominium
project, an action may be brought by one or more such person for partition
thereof, by sale of the entire project, as if the owners of all the
condominium in such project were co-owners of the entire project in the
same proportion as their interests in the common areas; Provided,
however, that a partition shall be made only upon a showing:
a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project which
renders a material part thereof unfit for its use prior thereto, the project
had not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its
damage or destruction; or

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one half or
more of the units therein untenantable and that condominium owners
holding in aggregate more than 30 percent interest in the common areas
are opposed to the repair or restoration of the projects; or
c) That project has been in existence in excess of 50 years, that it is
obsolete and uneconomical, and that condominium owners holding in
aggregate more than 50 percent interest in the common areas are opposed
to repair or restoration or remodeling or modernizing of the project; or
d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or
expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the
condominium owners holding in aggregate more than 70 percent interest in
the common areas are opposed to the continuation of the condominium
regime after expropriation or condemnation of a material proportion
thereof; or
e) That the condition for such partition by sale set forth in the declaration
of restrictions duly registered in accordance with the terms of this Act,
have been met.
DEED OF RESTRICTIONS MAY PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING
(SECTION 9)
Restrictions shall ensure to bind all condominium owners in the
project, such liens, unless otherwise, provided, may be enforced
by any condominium owner in the project or by the management
body of such project
As to management body
1. For the power thereof, including power to enforce the
provisions of the declarations of restrictions;
2. For the maintenance of insurance policies insuring
condominium owners against loss by the, casualty,
liability, workmen's compensation and other insurable
risks and for bonding of the members of any
management body;
3. Provisions for maintenance, utility, gardening and other
services benefiting the common areas for the operations
of the building, and legal, accounting and other
professional and technical services;
4. For purchase of materials, supplies and the like needed
by the common areas;
5. For payment of taxes and special assessment which
would be a lien upon the entire project or common areas,
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 48 of 123
for discharge of my encumbrance levied against the
entire project of the common areas;
6. The manner for delegation of its powers;
7. For reconstruction of any portion or portions of any
damage to or destruction of the project;
8. For entry by its officers and agents into any unit when
necessary in connection with the maintenance or
construction for which such body is responsible;
9. For a power of attorney to the management body to sell
the entire project for the benefit of all of the owners
thereof when partition of the project may be authorized
under Section 8 of this Act, which said power shall be
binding upon all of the condominium owners regardless
or whether they assume the obligations of the restrictions
or not
The manner and procedure for amending such restrictions,
provided, that the vote of not less than a majority in interest of
the owners is obtained;
For independent audit of the accounts of the management body;
For reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures,
each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of
such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its
owner's fractional interest in any common areas;
For the subordination of the liens securing such assessments to
other lien either generally or specifically described;
For conditions, other than those provided for in Section 8 and 13
of this Act, upon which partition of the project and dissolution of
the condominium corporation may be made. Such right to
partition or dissolution may be conditioned upon failure of the
condominium owners to rebuild within a certain period or upon
specified percentage of damage to the building, or upon a decision
of an arbitration, or upon any other reasonable condition.
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION (SECTION 10)
Shall be limited to the holding of the common areas; either the
ownership of any other interest in real property recognized by the
law, to the management of the project, and to such other
purposes as maybe necessary, incidental or convenient to the
accomplishment of said purposes
The articles of incorporation or by laws of the corporation shall not
contain any provision contrary to or inconsistent with the provision
of this Act, the enabling or master deed, or the declaration of
restrictions of the project, membership in a condominium
corporation regarding of whether it is stock or non-stock
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 49 of 123

corporation, shall not be transferable separately from the FACTS:

condominium unit of which it is an appurtenance
When a member or a stockholder ceases to own a unit in the
project in which the condominium corporation owns or holds the
common area, he shall automatically cease to be a member or
stockholder of the condominium corporation.
The registration and regulation of a condominium corporation shall
be vested with the Housing And Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and the term of the said corporation shall be coterminous
with the duration of the subdivision projects, the provision of the
corporation law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Unless otherwise provided for by the declaration of restrictions,
the management body, provided for herein, may acquire and hold,
for the benefit of the condominium owners, tangible personal
property and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise, and
the beneficial interest in such personal property shall be owned by
the condominium owners in the same proportion as their
respective interests in the common areas. A transfer of a
condominium shall transfer to the transferee ownership of the
transferor's beneficial interest in such personal property. (Section
22)
CASE DIGESTS: CO-OWNERSHIP
87 SI V. CA
342 SCRA 653
FACTS:
Escolastica conveyed a parcel of land to her three sons. This is evinced by
three deeds of sale. One of the sons then sold a part of the land to
spouses Si. Jose and his wife then sought to annul the sale alleging the
coownership over the land.
Sering co-owned a parcel of land with others. He instituted an action for
forcible entry against Plazo. Plazo sought to implead the other co-owners.
HELD:
Any of the co-owners may institute an action for ejectment.
89 ADLAWAN V. ADLAWAN
JANUARY 20, 2006
FACTS:
Arnelito was an illegitimate child of respondents brother. He filed a case
for unlawful detainer against respondents for he is allegedly the sole heir of
the house and lot. The respondents on the other hand contended that
subject property was the ancestral home co-owned by them with the
petitioners father.
HELD:
Any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment for the benefit of
all the co-owners. Nonetheless, the action should be dismissed if the suit
is for the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the
possession of the property.
90 PALMITUAN V. CA
215 SCRA 866
FACTS:
Agatona was the owner of a parcel of land. She had two childrenPascual
and Donato. Pascual died but left heirs. Donato then adjudicated to
himself the land. He later conveyed the land to his daughter. Another lot
was consequently sold in a public auction due to non-payment of taxes and
it was Donatos daughter who was able to redeem.

HELD: HELD:
After the physical division of the lot among the co-owners, the community Even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale will affect only his
ownership is terminated, and the right of preemption or redemption for own share and not the share of the other co-owners who didn't consent to
each other was no longer available. There is no co-ownership when the the sale. Since this is the case, a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided
different portions owned by the different people are already concretely share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of
determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically the others is not null and void.
described.
91 CRUZ V. LEIS
88 SERING V. PLAZO 327 SCRA 570
166 SCRA 84
FACTS:

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Spouses Leis obtained a loan from spouses Cruz, secured by a REM over a
parcel of land. The loan was unpaid and the REM foreclosed. The heirs of
the mortgagors sought to annul the sale that was held of the property,
alleging the property to be conjugal and subject to co-ownership.
HELD:
Redemption by a co-owner doesn't terminate the co-ownership nor give
her title to the whole property subject of the co-ownership.
92 VILLANUEVA V. FLORENDO
139 SCRA 329
FACTS:
Spouses Villanueva owned a parcel of land. The wife died, leaving the
husband and the children. Without partition of the property, the father
sold to his son and wife the lot. Co-owners wanted to redeem but the wife
of brother alleged that the right of redemption doesn't lie against her as
she is not the third person contemplated in law.
HELD:
The wife is wrong. She is one of those contemplated by law as being a
third person. The right of redemption lies against her.
*Dissenting opinion: the right of redemption doesn't lie against her.
93 MARIANO V. CA
222 SCRA 736
FACTS:
Gosengfiao owned a parcel of land. During his lifetime, he obtained a loan
secured by a REM over the land. Upon his death, he was survived by his
wife and children. The loan was unpaid and thus, the REM was foreclosed.
The land was redeemed by the mother and later sold the same, together
with the other children. Grace knew of the sale and sought annulment of
the sale.
HELD:
1. The right to redeem is not lost in the absence of any written
notice of the sale by the vendors. The 30-day period has not
begin to run.
2. The redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all co-
owners.
94 TAN V. CA
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 50 of 123
172 SCRA 660
FACTS:
Tan owned a parcel of land. During his lifetime, he obtained a loan secured
by a REM over the land. Upon his death, he was survived by his wife and
children. The loan was unpaid and thus, the REM was foreclosed. Wife and
kids sought the annulment of the REM. An amicable settlement was then
entered into between the bank and the family. The redemption would be
extended into 1 year more. Anne redeemed from bank but the latter
issued the title back to the co-heirs.
HELD:
Co-ownership expired when the heirs allowed the one-year redemption
period to expire without redeeming their parents property and permitted
the issuance of the new title and consolidation of ownership.
There was no co-ownership anymore when Annie redeemed the property.
It was in all accounts, to be considered as a sale.
95 DELIMA V. CA
201 SCRA 641
FACTS:
Lino bought a lot from the friar lands. He died and was survived by his
brothers and sisters. Galileo was the caretaker of the property. He was
able to execute an affidavit adjudicating to himself the parcel of land and
was able to secure the issuance of a TCT in his name. This prompted the
heirs of his siblings to file for reconveyance.
HELD:
When the co-owner of the property executed a deed of partition and on the
strength thereof, obtained a cancellation of the tile in the name of their
predecessor and the issuance of a new title in his name as owner, the
statute of limitations started to run for the purposes of the action instituted
by the latter seeking a declaration of the existence of the co-ownership and
their rights thereafter.
The issuance of a new title constituted a clear act of repudiation of the
trust and co-ownership.
96 ADILLE V. CA
157 SCRA 455
FACTS:

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Alzul originally owned the land. She had Adille as child from first marriage
and Asejos from the second marriage. She sold the land pacto de recto
but wasn't able to repurchase because she died. Adille was able to redeem
the land and was able to place the title to the land solely in his name. This
prompted his siblings and the heirs to file an action for partition and
accounting.
HELD:
Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem the property entitles the
vendee a retro to retain the property and consolidate title thereto to his
name. Even so, this doesnt mean that the redeeming co-owner has the
right to the entire property. It doesn't provide a mode of transferring co-
ownership.
97 MARIATEGUI V. CA
205 SCRA 337
FACTS:
Lupo was able to marry three times and had children in all three marriages.
He died without a will. The children of the first and second marriages were
able to partition among themselves parcels of land, leaving behind the
children from third marriage. This prompted them to file an action for
partition and alleged that they have been prejudiced in their rights.
HELD:
The registration in the names of petitioners of the titles to the properties is
not an act of repudiation of the co-ownership.
98 HEIRS OF MANINGDING V. CA
276 SCRA 601
FACTS:
An action for partition, accounting and annulment of documents over two
parcels of land was filed by petitioners. The private respondents alleged
that their father acquired the properties through donation propter nuptias.
Petitioners allege that Roque repudiated ownership over the sugarland and
Maria and Juan on the other hand, quitclaimed interest over the Riceland.
HELD:
Compliance with the conditions is needed before prescription may run
against a co-owner. (Remember the 4 requisites).
99 AGUILAR V. CA
227 SCRA 472
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 51 of 123
FACTS:
Brothers Virgilio and Senen bought in co-ownership a house where their
father would stay. It was first agreed upon that Virgilio would have 2/3
and Senen 1/3 but in the written agreement, they had a 50-50 share.
Upon the death of the father, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the house and
they should sell the same. Senen didn't want to leave. Virgilio filed for
partition.
HELD:
No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and that each
co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in
common insofar as his share is concerned.
100 CORONEL V. CONSTANTINO
397 SCRA 128
FACTS:
The property was originally owned by Aguinaldo. She died and was
survived by Coronel and Constantino. Constantino and his wife sought to
be declared the owners of the land by virtue of the sale to them of the land
of Santos who obtained beforehand the land from Coronel.
HELD:
The sale of the subject property made by Emilia in favor of Santos is
limited to the portion which may be allotted to her upon the termination of
co-ownership over the subject property with her children.
POSSESSION
Art. 523. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a
right. (430a)
VIEWPOINTS OF POSSESSION
1. Right to possession or jus possidendipossession de facto;
incident of ownership
2. Right of possession or jus possessionspossession de jure;
independent of ownership
DEGREES OF POSSESSION
1. Mere holding or having without any right whatsoever
grammatical degree
2. Possession with juridical titlejuridical possession

3. Possession with just title but not from the real ownerreal
possessory right
4. Possession with title of dominium, with a just title from the owner
REQUISITES OR ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION
1. There must be holding or control of a thing or right
2. There must be a deliberate intention to possess or animus
possidendi
3. The possession must be by virtue of ones own right
CLASSES OF POSSESSION
1. In ones own name or in that of another
2. In the concept of owner or concept of holder
3. In good faith or in bad faith
OWNERSHIP IS DIFFERENT FROM POSSESSION
A person may be declared the owner but he may not be entitled to
possession
A judgment for ownership doesn't necessarily include possession as a
necessary incident
Art. 524. Possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that
of another. (413a)
POSSESSION IN ANOTHERS NAME
1. Voluntaryagent possesses for his principal
2. Involuntaryas when a mother possesses for a child in a maternal
womb
3. Unauthorizedwill become principals possession only after there
has been ratification without prejudice to the effects of
negotiorum gestio
Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of
two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in that of the
holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership
pertaining to another person. (432)
CONCEPT OF OWNER
Other people believe through my actions, that I am the owner of
the property
Considered in the opinion of others as owner
Regardless of good faith or bad faith
Contrary to concept of holder wherein I recognize another to be
the owner of the property
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 52 of 123
Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware
that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case
contrary to the foregoing.
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the
basis of good faith. (433a)
MISTAKE ON A DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF LAW
It is true that ignorance of the law excuses no one but error in the
application of the law, in the legal solutions arising from such
application, and the interpretation of doubtful doctrine can still
make a person a transgressor, possessor, violator in good faith
Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges
bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.
(434)
Art. 528. 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. (435a)
WHEN IS POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH CONVERTED TO
POSSESSION IN BAD FAITH?
1. From the moment facts exist showing the possessors knowledge
of the flaw, from that time he should be considered as a possessor
in bad faith
2. It doesn't matter whether the facts were caused by him or by
some other person
WHEN BAD FAITH BEGINS
Judicial summons
Even before such time as when a letter is received from the true
owner asking the possessor to stop
Art. 529. It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in
the same character in which it was acquired, until the contrary is
proved. (436)

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING POSSESSION
1. Good faith
2. Continuity of the character of good faith
3. Non-interruption of possession
4. Presumption of just title
5. Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally
recovered
6. Possession during intervening period
7. Possession of movables with real property
8. Exclusive possession of common property
Art. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being
appropriated may be the object of possession. (437)
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a
thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to
the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities
established for acquiring such right. (438a)
HOW IS POSSESSION ACQUIRED?
1. By material occupation
2. By subjection to our will
3. By constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities
a. Constititom possessorium exists when a person who
possessed property as an owner now possesses it in
some other capacity other than owner
b. Traditio brevi manu is the opposite of constitutom
possessorium
c. Traditio longa manu is delivery by consent or mere
pointing
d. Traditio symbolica
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POSSESSION
1. The corpus
2. The animus
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF LAND
If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership, there is
constructive possession of the entire parcel unless a portion
thereof is adversely possessed by another
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 53 of 123
Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to
enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person
without any power whatever: but in the last case, the possession
shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name
the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without
prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a
proper case. (439a)
NEGOTIORUM GESTIO
Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management
of the business or property of another, without any power from
the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of
the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to
substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so. This juridical
relation does not arise in either of these instances:
1. When the property or business is not neglected or
abandoned;
2. If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the
owner.
In the first case, the provisions of Articles 1317, 1403, No. 1, and
1404 regarding unauthorized contracts shall govern.
In the second case, the rules on agency in Title X of this Book
shall be applicable. (1888a)
Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed
transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment
of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.
One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have
possessed the same. (440)
TIMES OF ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
1. If heir acceptsfrom the moment of death since there is no
interruption
2. If heir refuseshe is deemed never to have possessed the same
Art. 534. On who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is
not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the
effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except
from the date of the death of the decedent. (442)
EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION THROUGH SUCCESSION
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 54 of 123

If the father was in bad faith, it doesn't mean that the son is also The old possession is not revived if a new possession should be
in bad faith exercised by the same adverse claimant. (1944a)

Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the
possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal
representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the
possession arise in their favor. (443)
NATURE OF THEIR POSSESSION
Possession by them is allowed only in those matters where they
have capacity to act and not possession where juridical acts are
imperative
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He
who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of
the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court,
if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. (441a)
Art. 1122. If the natural interruption is for only one year or less,
the time elapsed shall be counted in favor of the prescription. (n)
Art. 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the
possessor. (1945a)
IT IS POSSIBLE FOR CURRENT POSSESSOR TO ADD TIME TO
POSSESSION OF PREDECESSOR IF there is privity between them. This
procedure is called TACKING.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
Given Predecessor A and Successor B
First, look at the successors good faith or bad faith

POSSESSION MAY NOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING Second, remember that the magic number is 2 with personal property.
1. Force and intimidation
2. By mere tolerance A GF 3 GF 6 BF 1.5 BF 3
3. Clandestine and secret possession

Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely B GF 1 BF 2 GF 2.5 5
and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by
violence, do not affect possession. (444) 4 8 4 8

Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
time in two different personalities except in the cases of co- Same banana but now, the magic number is 3.
possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are
two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the A GF 3 GF 9 BF 1 BF 1
possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all
these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial B GF 7 BF 21 GF 9 BF 29
deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership
through proper proceedings. (445) 10 30 10 30

Art. 1120. Possession is interrupted for the purposes of CASE DIGESTS: POSSESSION
prescription, naturally or civilly. (1943)
101 HEIRS OF SORIANO V. CA
Art. 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted when through any 363 SCRA 87
cause it should cease for more than one year.
FACTS:

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
A subsequent owner of a parcel of land was successful in registering the
land. Prior to this registration, Soriano was already occupying the subject
land as sub-lessee for around 15 years.
May a successful registrant oust validly one whose security of tenure rights
is pending with the DARAB?
HELD:
1. Ownership and possession are distinct legal concepts. There is
ownership when a thing pertaining to one person is consistent
with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the
owner, among which are the right to enjoy the thing owned and
the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. On
the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or
enjoyment of a right. Possession may be in the concept of owner
or concept of holder.
2. A judgment in a land registration case cannot be effectively used
to oust the possessor of the land, whose security of tenure rights
are being determined by the DARAB.
102 RAMOS V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
39 PHIL 175
FACTS:
Ramos was a holder of a possession information title which he later
conveyed to Romero. Romero applied for the registration of the land.
HELD:
The possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land under claim of
ownership, under a claim of ownership of all, is a constructive possession
of all, if the remainder isnt under the adverse possession of another.
103 SOMODIO V. CA
235 SCRA 307
FACTS:
Somodio paid of the purchase price for a parcel of land. He started to
construct a house but was left unfinished when he was employed in a far
away area. He allowed Ayco to occupy the land but when he tried to
demand Ayco to vacate the premises, the latter refused to do so.
HELD:
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 55 of 123
Possession in the eyes of the law doesnt mean that a man has to have his
feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said he is in
possession.
104 LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
65 PHIL 367
FACTS:
Lasam sought the registration of over 100 hectares of land. This was
opposed by many, one by the Director of Lands, alleging that Lasam had
no appropriate title to the land to support claim as well as the land is public
land.
HELD:
While possession in the eyes of law doesnt mean that a man has to have
his two feet on every square feet of ground before it can be said that he is
in possession but possession is not gained by a mere nominal claim. The
mere planting of a sign or symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-
like claim of dominion over an immense tract of territory. Possession as a
means of acquiring ownership is not mere fiction.
105 CHUA BRUCE V. CA
331 SCRA 1
FACTS:
After a physical count of the money bundles in the vault, it was found out
by management that the bank had a shortage of money. An investigation
was conducted and one of those questioned was the cash custodian.
Unable to give reasonable explanation, a case of estafa was filed against
her.
HELD:
Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right
over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. A
cash custodians possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to
that of a bank teller both being mere bank employees.
106 PO LAM V. CA
347 SCRA 86
FACTS:
Lim Kim Chiong and LAHCO entered into a contract of sale. Later, the
former instituted an action for the annulment of the sale and the
reconveyance of the property. Pending this action, LAHCO was able to sell

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
the property to Po Lam who leased then the property to Felix Lim. The
latter thereafter after the proceedings have ended for the annulment of the
sale, deposited the rentals in court in favor of Lim.
HELD:
A buyer cannot be considered as being aware of the flaw which invalidates
his acquisition of the thing where the alleged flaw, the notice of lis
pendens, was already ordered cancelled at the time of purchase.
107 STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE V. CA
254 SCRA 368
FACTS:
Spouses Canuto and Solid Homes entered into a contract to sell. Solid
then mortgaged the property in favor of petitioner and upon his failure to
pay the loan, the property was foreclosed. Here now comes the spouses
who filed a complaint with the HLURB for failure of Solid to execute an
absolute deed of sale.
HELD:
An unregistered mortgage is of no moment since it is understood to be
without prejudice to the better right of third parties.
108 DBP V. CA
316 SCRA 650
FACTS:
Spouses Pineda were the owners of a parcel of land which they mortgaged
to DBP in consideration of a loan. As the loan was unpaid, the mortgage
was foreclosed and DBP took possession of the property. It was opined by
the Ministry of Justice that the subject property may not be the subject of
foreclosure proceedings. The spouses then sought to redeem the property
but was denied as the land was allegedly tenanted. They then sought the
cancellation of the title and specific performance.
HELD:
A possessor in good faith is one who is not aware that there exists in his
title or mode of acquisition any flaw, which invalidates it and he who
alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor has the burden of proof.
109 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION V. CA
185 SCRA 727
FACTS:
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 56 of 123
SMC bought a parcel of land from Perez. It sought the registration of the
land but was opposed by the government.
HELD:
Such open, continuous, exclusive and public occupation of the disputed
properties for more than 30 years must be conclusively established.
110 EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT V. MAYFAIR THEATRE
370 SCRA 56
FACTS:
Follow-up case of the popular Equatorial case in OBLICON and SALES.
HELD:
1. Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property
producing it by right of accession.
2. Ownership of the thing sold is a real right, which the buyer
acquires only upon the delivery to him in any of the ways specified
by law or in any other manner signifying an agreement that the
possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. While
the execution of a public instrument of sale is recognized by law
as equivalent to delivery of the thing sold, such constructive or
symbolic delivery, being merely presumptive, is deemed negated
by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land
sold.
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION
Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his
possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means
established by the laws and the Rules of Court.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may
within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion to
secure from the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his
possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30)
days from the filing thereof. (446a)
RIGHTS TO BE RESPECTED IN POSSESSIONGENERAL NATURE
1. Right of a person to be respected in his possession
2. Protection in said right or restoration to said possession thru legal
means
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 57 of 123

3. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction 6. Co-owners

SPECIFIC RIGHT TO BE RESPECTED IN POSSESSION
1. Reasons for protection of possession
a. Possession is very similar to ownership and as a matter
of fact modifies ownership
b. Possession almost invariably gives rise to the
presumption that the possessor is the owner
2. Every possessor is protectedwhether concept of owner or holder
Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the
legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot
be obliged to show or prove it. (448a)
PRESUMPTION THAT POSSESSOR HAS JUST TITLE
1. One must be in possessionactual or constructive
2. The possession must be in the concept of owner

LEGAL MEANS FOR RESTORATION TO POSSESSION DIFFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO JUST TITLE IN CHAPTER OF
1. To prevent spoliation or a disregard of public order POSSESSION AND JUST TITLE IN THE CHAPTER OF PRESCRIPTION
2. To prevent deprivation of property without due process IN POSSESSION IN PRESCRIPTION
3. To prevent a person from taking the law into his own hands Just title here is presumed. Just title here must be proved.

WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION Just title here means titulo Just title here means titulo
1. Injunction cannot substitute for the other, actions to recover verdadero y validotrue and valid Colorado or colorable title although
possession. The possessor in the meantime has in his favor, the title sufficient to transfer ownership. there was a mode of transferring
presumption of rightful possession, at least, till the case is finally ownership.
decided
2. Requisites for the issuance
THE KINDS OF TITLE
a. In forcible entry casesfile within 10 days from the time
1. True and valid title (titulo verdadero y valido)there was a mode
of the complaint
of transferring ownership and the grantor was the owner
b. In unlawful detainer caseswithin 10 days from the time
2. Colorable title (titulo Colorado)that title, although there was a
appeal is perfected only if
mode of transferring ownership, still something is wrong since the
i. The lessees appeal is frivolous or dilatory
grantor is not the owner
ii. The lessors appeal is prima facie meritorious
3. Putative titlewhere although the person believes himself to be
the owner, he nonetheless is not, because there was no mode of
Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept
acquiring ownership
of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion. (447)
Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the
POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNER
movables therein, so long as it is not shown or proved that they
If a person possesses in the concept of ownerhe may eventually
should be excluded. (449)
become the owner by prescription
Thus, a possessor merely in the concept of holder cannot acquire
PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF MOVABLES FOUND IN AN
property by acquisitive prescriptionone cannot recognize the
IMMOVABLE
right of another and at the same time claim adverse possession.
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE
POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF HOLDER
1. Whether the possessor be in good faith or bad faith
1. Lessees
2. Whether the possessor be in one owns name or in anothers
2. Trustees
3. Whether the possessor be in concept of owner or holder
3. Antichrectic creditors
4. Agents
5. Depositaries

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

Art. 543. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in
common shall be deemed to have exclusively possessed the part
which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the
entire period during which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in
the possession of the whole or a part of a thing possessed in
common shall be to the prejudice of all the possessors. However, in
case of civil interruption, the Rules of Court shall apply. (450a)
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION BY A PREVIOUS CO-OWNER
SHALL BE DEEMED
It gives a right and not just a mere presumption
RULES TO APPLY FOR CIVIL INTERRUPTION
Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the
possessor
Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and
shall not give rise to interruption
o If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities
o If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should
allow the proceedings to lapse
o If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received
before the possession is legally interrupted.
Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time
they are gathered or severed.
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor
in good faith in that proportion. (451)
RIGHTS OF A POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH TO FRUITS ALREADY
RECEIVED
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any
natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a
part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest,
both in proportion to the time of the possession.
The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two
possessors.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 58 of 123
The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the
possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation and
gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the
expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds; the possessor in good
faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this
concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other
manner. (452a)
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.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good
faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated
him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of
the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing
may have acquired by reason thereof. (453a)
Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without
damage to the principal thing, the possessor in good faith may
remove them, unless the person who recovers the possession
exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the preceding article. (n)
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. (454)
Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits
received and those which the legitimate possessor could have
received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in
paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article 443. The expenses
incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall
not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove
the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided
that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful
possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they
may have at the time he enters into possession. (445a)
Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by
every possessor. (n)
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 59 of 123

Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always cultivation and
insure to the benefit of the person who has succeeded in gathering of the fruits
recovering possession. (456) PENDING Owner has 2 options: No rights not even
reimbursement of
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the Option 1: Pro-rating expenses for
deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, except in cases in (based on period of cultivation (because by
which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or possession) between right of accession, all
negligence, after the judicial summons. possessor and owner fruits belong to the
ofexpenses, net owner without need to
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in harvest, and charges pay indemnity)
every case, even if caused by a fortuitous event. (457a)
Option 2: To allow Must pay damages as
PROPERTY POSSESSION CHARTS possessor to stay in reasonable rent for the
C/O ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL possession until after term of possession.
all fruits are gathered
RULES ON FRUITS (which shall serve as
KINDS OF FRUITS POSSESSOR IN POSSSESSOR IN the indemnity for
GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH expenses)
CIVIL FRUITS Entitled to fruits from Not entitled to fruits.
the start of possession
RULES ON EXPENSES AND DETERIORATION/LOSS
until legal interruption Must pay damages as
EXPENSES POSSESSOR IN POSSESSOR IN BAD
rental from time
GOOD FAITH FAITH
possession started
NECESSARY EXPENSES Entitled to Entitled to
until possession is
reimbursement reimbursement
finally defeated.
NATURAL OR INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
Right of retention No right of retention:
GATHERED Right to retain fruits Must account for the
pending full must vacate
fruits and return value
reimbursement propertyrecourse is
of:
to file collection case
1. fruits actually
received
Liable for damages as
2. fruits which the
reasonable rent for
legal possessor could
period of possession
have received with due
USEFUL EXPENSES Owner has two No rights.
care and diligence
options
Must pay damages as
Option 1:
reasonable rent for the
Reimbursement of
term of possession
either amount spent
or increase in value
But entitled to
with right of retention
necessary expenses for
until full payment
preservation,

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 60 of 123

Option 2: To allow
possessor to remove (2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or
provided there will be gratuitous title;
no substantial injury
or damage is caused (3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it
LUXURIOUS EXPENSES Owner has two Owner has two goes out of commerce;
options options
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of
Option 1: To allow Option 1: To allow Article 537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one year.
possessor to remove possessor to remove But the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten
ornaments if the ornaments if the years. (460a)
principal suffers no principal suffers no
injury injury ABANDONMENT
1. Possessor in the concept of owner
Option 2: To retain Option 2: To retain 2. The abandoner must have the capacity to renounce or to alienate
the ornament by the ornament by 3. There must be physical relinquishment of the thing or object
refunding the amount refunding the value of 4. There must be no more spes recuperandi/expectation to recover
spent for the the ornament at the or animus revertendi/intent to return or get back
ornament time owner enters
into possession, N.B: Abandonment which converts the thing into res nulliusownership of
which means which may ordinarily be obtained by occupationdoesnt apply to land.
depreciated value Ownership of land cannot be obtained through occupation.
DETERIORATION/LOSS No liability unless due Always liable whether
to fraudulent intent or before or after service ASSIGNMENT
negligence after of judicial summons, 1. Complete transmission of ownership rights to another person
service of judicial for any cause, even 2. At no time did the thing not have a possessor
summons fortuitous event 3. Both possession de facto and de jure are lost and no action will
allow recovery
Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay
POSSESSION OF ANOTHER
for improvements which have ceased to exist at the time he takes
1. If person isnt in possession for more than 1 year, he loses his
possession of the thing. (458)
possession de facto
2. If a person loses possession for more than 10 years, he loses
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH CEASE TO EXIST
possession de jure or the real right of a possessor
Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some
Art. 556. The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as
previous time, is presumed to have held possession also during the
they remain under the control of the possessor, even though for
intermediate period, in the absence of proof to the contrary. (459)
the time being he may not know their whereabouts. (461)
PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION DURING INTERVENING PERIOD
WHEN POSSESSION OF MOVABLES IS NOT LOST OR NOT LOST
If the possessor has no idea at all about the whereabouts of the
Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:
movable, possession is lost
BUT not when he more or less knows its general location, though
(1) By the abandonment of the thing;
he may not know its precise or definite location

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 61 of 123

a. If the possessor acquired it in good faith and for value by

Art. 557. The possession of immovables and of real rights is not
deemed lost, or transferred for purposes of prescription to the
prejudice of third persons, except in accordance with the provisions
of the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration laws. (462a)
LOSS OF IMMOVABLES WITH RESPECT TO THIRD PERSONS
Art. 558. Acts relating to possession, executed or agreed to by one
who possesses a thing belonging to another as a mere holder to
enjoy or keep it, in any character, do not bind or prejudice the
owner, unless he gave said holder express authority to do such
acts, or ratifies them subsequently. (463)
purchase from a merchants store, fairs, or markets in
accordance with the Code of Commerce
b. If owner by his own conduct precluded form denying the
sellers authority to sell
c. If possessor had obtained the goods because he was an
innocent purchaser for value and holder of a negotiable
document of title
Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed only while they are under
one's control; domesticated or tamed animals are considered
domestic or tame if they retain the habit of returning to the
premises of the possessor. (465)

ACTS OF MERE HOLDER THREE KINDS OF ANIMALS

Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith
is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable
or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the
person in possession of the same.
If the possessor of a movable lost or which the owner has been
unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale,
the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price
paid therefor. (464a)
WHEN POSSESSION OF MOVABLE IS EQUIVALENT TO TITLE
1. In bad faithis never equivalent to title
2. In good faith
a. D is entitled to titleas a general rule
b. Is not equivalent to tile when the owner has lost or has
been unlawfully deprived of it, unless the possessor had
acquired in good faith at a public sale
SUMMARY OF RECOVERY OR NON-RECOVERY POSSESSION
1. Owner may recover without reimbursement
a. From possessor in bad faith
b. From possessor in good faithif owner has lost or has
been unlawfully deprived
2. Owner may recover but should reimburse
a. If the possessor acquired the object in good faith at a
public sale or auction
3. Owner cannot recover, even if he offers to reimburse
1. Wild animalswhich live naturally independent of man
2. Domesticatedwild by nature but recognizes the authority of man
3. Domesticborn and reared ordinarily under the control of and
care of man
POSSESSION OF WILD ANIMALS
Ones possession of wild animals is lost when they are under
anothers control or under no ones control
DOMESTICATED OR TAMED ANIMALS
The possessor doesnt lose possession of themas long as
habitulally they return to the possessors premises
Impliedly, possession of them is lost if the aforementioned habit
has ceased
Art. 561. One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly
lost, shall be deemed for all purposes which may redound to his
benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption. (466)
LAWFUL RECOVERY OF POSSESSION THAT HAD BEEN UNJUSTLY
LOST
Applies to both possessors in good faith and bad faith, but only if
beneficial to them
Thus, a possessor in good faith for the purpose of prescription
may make use of this article
CASE DIGESTS: EFFECT OF POSSESSION
111 VDA. DE BORROMEO V. POGOY

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
126 SCRA 217
FACTS:
The intestate estate of Borromeo is the owner of a building, which was
being rented out to petitioner. On a relevant date, private respondent sent
a letter to petitioner for the payment of overdue rentals as well as to
vacate the premises thereafter. The petitioner failed to pay. With less
than a year from the demand letter, private respondent instituted action
against petitioner for unlawful detainer. Private respondent moves for the
dismissal of the case for want of jurisdiction as she asserts that conciliation
proceedings should have first been instituted with the Lupon Barangay.
HELD:
Even though the private respondent should have submitted the complaint
before the Lupon, the petition should still be dismissed. The Lupon only
refers to individualssingle human being contrasted with a social group or
institution. It only applies to natural persons. In the case at bar, private
respondent is only a nominal party in behalf of the intestate estate. The
real party in interest is the intestate estate and thus, doesn't fall within the
ambits of the provision requiring submission of the case to conciliation
proceedings with the Lupon.
112 WILMON AUTO SUPPLY V. CA
208 SCRA 108
FACTS:
Wilmon was the lessee of a commercial building and bodegas standing on a
registered land owned in common by the Lacsons, Solinap, and Jarantilla.
The leases were embodied in deeds wherein one of the clauses provided for
a reservation of rightsthe seller has the right to encumber or sell the
property provided that the transferee would respect the lease of Wilmon.
On a relevant date, after the expiration of the lease period, the premises
were sold to Star Group Resources and Development. The latter instituted
an action for unlawful detainer against Wilmon. Wilmon impugned Stars
right to eject them. It alleges that its right of preemption has been
violated, as well as their leasehold rights, and that it was denied the option
to extend the lease. These same propositions were also raised in the case
it filed with the RTC.
In the unlawful detainer cases, it was decided by the MTC that the case
should proceed against some of the lessees but not with the others. The
lessees filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. They filed a
petition for certiorari and the RTC held in the end that the pendency of the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 62 of 123
case in the RTC didn't warrant suspension of the unlawful detainer case
with the MTC.
HELD:
An ejectment suit cannot be suspended by an action filed with the RTC
based on a tenants claim of his right of preemption was violated.
The actions in the RTC didn't involve physical possession and on not a few
occasions, that the case in the RTC was merely a ploy to delay disposition
of the ejectment proceeding.
113 SEMIRA V. CA
230 SCRA 577
FACTS:
Gutierrez was the owner of a parcel of land. This parcel was sold to
Buenaventura An. He entered the premises based on the boundaries
stated in the deed of sale. He then bought two additional parcels of land.
On a relevant date, he sold the first parcel to his nephew who also entered
the premises based on the boundaries stated in the deed. The deed also
stated the same boundaries and area of the lot, which was larger in
actuality. This nephew then sold the land to petitioner. The deed this time
reflected a different area, the actual area of the land. The land was found
to be larger than what was stated in the previous documents. Semira
entered then the premises based on the boundaries and began construction
of a rice mill. Buenaventura then filed an action for forcible entry against
Semira, alleging that latter illegally encroached on the other parcel of land
previously bought by the former and that the land that was supposed to be
occupied by the latter was smaller than the land he was actually occupying.
HELD:
In the case at bar, the issue of possession cannot be decided independently
of the question of ownership. Private respondent claimed constructive
possession of the parcel of land he alleged to be encroached by Semira.
Likewise, Semira based his occupancy of the land by virtue of the
Ramirezs sale of the land to him. The question of prior possession may
only be resolved in answering the question of who is the real owner of the
disputed portion.
Where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of measure,
the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determines the effects
and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. The vendor is thus obligated
to deliver the land included within the boundaries regardless of whether
the land is greater or lesser than the area stipulated in the sale.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
114 WONG V. CARPIO
203 SCRA 118
FACTS:
Giger sold a parcel of land through a pacto de recto sale to Mercado.
Mercado only began to harvest the coconut fruits but he never placed
anyone over the land to watch it. Neither did he reside in the land nor was
there any hut constructed thereon to show possession. Thereafter, Wong
inspected the land to see if whether there was anyone claiming the land.
After finding there was none, he bought the land from Giger. He placed
workers on the land, constructed a farmhouse, and fenced the boundaries.
He couldn't register the sale due to some technicalities.
HELD:
Possession is acquired through the material occupation of the thing or the
exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities acquiring such rights and that the
execution of the public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing
unless there is stipulation to the contrary. If however, notwithstanding the
execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and
tenancy of the thing and make use of it herself, because such enjoyment
and tenancy are opposed by another, then delivery has not been effected.
Possession was passed to Mercado by virtue of the first pacto de recto sale.
There was an impediment in passing possession to Wong by virtue of the
later sale and this was the possession exercised by Mercado.
Further, the action for forcible entry was called for. The act of entering the
property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies
the exertion of force over the property and this is all that is necessary.
Furthermore, there should be payment of rentals from the time the
presumption of good faith ceased or the receipt of summons by Wong.
Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are
made known to the possessors.
115 JAVIER V. VERIDIANO
237 SCRA 565
FACTS:
Javier filed a miscellaneous sales application over a parcel of land.
Thereafter, she instituted an action for forcible entry against Ben Babol,
alleging that she was forcibly dispossessed of the parcel of land. Her
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 63 of 123
complaint was dismissing, followed the finding of the Bureau of Lands that
the disputed portion of land is outside the lot owned by Javier. Later, the
sales application has been granted. Babol had already sold the land to
somebody else. Petitioner demanded the return of the land to her and
after 4 years since the dismissal of her earlier complaint, she files an action
for quieting of title and recovery of possession against Babol and Rosete.
The latter moved for the dismissal of the case based on res judicata.
HELD:
A judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue
than possession and declares only who has the right of possession, but by
no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has right
or title of ownership.
116 LIM KICH TONG V. CA
195 SCRA 398
FACTS:
Lim and his family originally occupied a room for residential purposes.
After they transferred residence, they utilized the room for the storage of
some important belongings. The building had a common main door
through which the occupants of the various rooms therein can get in and
out therefrom. Each occupant was given a duplicate key to such doorlock.
On a relevant date, when Lim needed to get his law books, his key couldn't
open the door. He then needed to incur expenses in buying new law books
because of the incident. When he was able to contact the officer-in-
charge, the latter refused to issue to him a new key.
HELD:
Any person deprived of possession of any land or building or part thereof,
may file an action for forcible entry and detainer in the proper inferior
courts against the person unlawfully depriving or withholding possession
from him. This relief is also available to lessees and tenants.
117 PENAS V. CA
233 SCRA 744
FACTS:
Penas leased the disputed property in favor of Calaycay. An extrajudicial
settlement was executed by the heirs of Penas after his death. As time
went on, the lease continued with increased rentals. On a relevant date, a
letter was sent to Calaycay from petitioner Penas, relaying the intent to
terminate the lease contract and the offer of drafting a new lease contract
with a higher rental fee. Calaycay failed to abide with the demands. He

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
continued though to occupy the premises and deposited rentals to the bank
in trust of petitioner Penas. Another letter was sent but to no avail. This
prompted the petitioner to file an action for unlawful detainer. The
complaint was dismissed in the lower court.
HELD:
A complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should it be counted from the
last demand letter to vacate, the reason being that the lessor has the right
to waive his right of action based on previous demands and let the lessee
remain meanwhile in the premises.
118 FRANCEL REALTY CORPORATION V. CA
252 SCRA 127
FACTS:
Petitioner executed a contract to sell in favor of Sycip. It was stipulated
that in case of failure to pay 2 or more installment payments, the whole
obligation shall be due and demandable and the seller has the right to
rescind the contract. The buyer would also have to vacate the premises
without need of any court action. Thereafter, petitioner filed a case for
unlawful detainer for the alleged failure of Sycip to pay monthly
amortizations. Demand letters of petitioner against Sycip were to no avail
as the latter refused to vacate. Sycip alleged that it had to stop paying
monthly amortizations or rentals as the petitioner failed to develop the
subdivision project, part of their stipulation. The complaint was ultimately
dismissed, the court then holding that it had no jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
Where a complaint for unlawful detainer arises from the failure of the buyer
on installment basis of real property to pay based on a right to stop paying
monthly amortizations based on PD957, the determinative question is
exclusively cognizable by the HLURB.
119 AZARCON V. EUSEBIO
105 PHIL 569
FACTS:
Eusebio filed for a lease application over a parcel of land, Azarcon occupied
a portion thereof under a homestead application. This caused a dispute
between the two. While their dispute was pending, Eusebio filed a case
against Eusebio alleging that he acquired the parcel of land by lease from
the Director of Lands and that Azarcon had been occupying a portion
thereof. He prayed for Azarcon to vacate the premises. Azarcon on the
other hand, alleged that he had been occupying the land by virtue of a
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 64 of 123
homestead application prior to the lease application of Eusebio, with
interruptions during the war and until the time of filing of the action. The
trial court ruled in favor of Eusebio and while pending appeal, a writ of
execution was issued ordering Azarcon to leave the premises without
expressly ordering Azarcon to desist from gathering pending fruits.
Azarcon moved for the setting aside of the order and posted bond as he
was required by the court. The court eventually set aside the order but
reinstated it under the wrong premise that Azarcon failed to post the
required bond. Despite the reinstatement of the order, Azarcon continued
to gather the pending fruits on the land.
HELD:
Evidence showed that despite the writ of execution ordering Azarcon to
remove from the premises and let Eusebio to have restitution of the same,
Azarcon continued to enter the premises and gather the palay, which was
then pending harvest. It is found out that the palay had been planted and
cultivated by Azarcon who had been in possession of the land. The court
didn't prohibit Azarcon in its order from gathering the crops then existing
thereon. Under the law, a person who is in possession and who is being
ordered to leave a parcel of land while products thereon are pending
harvest, has the right to a part of the net harvest.
As the order didn't expressly prohibited Azarcon to gather pending fruits,
there has been no violation of the courts order. This is even bolstered by
the fact that the writ of execution has been set aside and Azarcon posted
the required bond as required by the court. If the order was then
reinstated it was because of the wrong premise that the bond wasn't
posted by Azarcon as required.
120 CALAGAN V. CFI OF DAVAO
95 SCRA 498
FACTS:
Calagan and his wife Takura was granted a homestead application over a
parcel of land. Takura died and was survived by her husband and their
children. On a relevant date, Calagan sold a portion of the homestead to
Sandoval. She was given the title so that the sale could be annotated.
Thereafter, Calagan offered to repurchase the land but Sandoval didn't
agreed. She continuously refused and was only willing to comply if
Calagan would reimburse the value of the house constructed on the parcel
of land. This prompted petitioners to file an action for reconveyance, on
which the trial court ruled in their favor, given that they pay for the value
of the house built on good faith by Sandoval.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
HELD:
Since petitioners didn't exercise the option to refund the amount of the
expenses incurred by private respondent for the house that the latter has
built, and not to pay the increase in value acquired by the land by reason
of such expenses. Sandoval may remove her house since this can be done
without damage. Petitioners should not be made to refund the value of the
house since this would thwart the policy laid down in CA141.
121 CRUZ V. PAHATI
98 PHIL 788
FACTS:
The car in dispute was originally owned by Northern Motors and was
subsequently purchased by a Chinaman. This Chinaman then sold it to
Belizo, who in turn sold the same to Cruz. Belizo was a second-hand car
dealer. He offered to Cruz that he would sell the car to a prospective buyer
and since the car registration was missing, Cruz issued an authorization
letter to Belizo to obtain another certificate, at the insinuation of the latter.
The car was also turned over to Belizo. The letter was then falsified by
Belizo and converted into an absolute deed of sale. Because of this, he
was able to secure a car registration in his name and was later able to sell
the car to Balahan who then sold the car to Pahati. This prompted Cruz to
file an action for replevin.
HELD:
One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may
recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only
defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public
sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing
the price paid therefore. This is supplemented by the provision stating that
where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who
doesn't sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the
buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the
owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the sellers
authority to sell.
Cruz has a better right to the car in question than Bulahan or Pahati. He
has the right to recover the car as he was unlawfully deprived of it due to
the ingenious scheme employed by Belizo. This is the case even if Bulahan
or Pahati acted in good faith.
122 AZNAR V.YAPDIANGCO
13 SCRA 486
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 65 of 123
FACTS:
Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane
500. After the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew
of Marella, went to the residence of Santos and expressing his uncles
intent to purchase the car. Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo who
talked with de Dios. On being informed, Santos advised his son to see
Marella, which the son did. Marella expressed his intention to purchase the
car. A deed of sale was prepared and Irineo was instructed by his father
not to part with the deed and the car without receiving the purchase price
from Marella. When irineo and de Dios arrived at the residence of Marella,
the latter averred that his money was short and had to borrow from his
sister. He then instructed de Dios and Irineo to go the supposed house of
the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified person. He also asked
Irineo to leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. Relying on the good
faith of Marella, Irineo did as requested. Upon arriving at the house of
Marellas supposed to be sister, de Dios and the unidentified person then
disappeared together with the car. This prompted Santos to report the
incident to the authorities. Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to
Aznar. And while in possession of the car, police authorities confiscated
the same. This prompted Aznar to file an action for replevin.
HELD:
Marella never had title to the car as the car wasn't ever delivered to him.
While there was a deed of sale in his favor, he was only able to obtain
possession of the car since he stole it from Santos.
The applicable law is Article 559. The rule is to the effect that if the owner
has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right
to recover it, not only from its finder, thief or robber, but also from third
persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
robber. The said article establishes 2 exceptions to the general rule of
irrevindicabiltyto wit, the owner has lost the thing or has been unlawfully
deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as
against the owner who may recover it without paying any indemnity,
except when the possessor acquired it in a public sale.
Furthermore, the common law principle that where one of two innocent
persons must suffer a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the
loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enable the fraud
to be committed, cannot be applied in this case, which is covered by an
express provision of law.
123 DE GARCIA V. CA
37 SCRA 160

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
FACTS:
Guevarra was the owner of a ladys diamond ring with white gold
mounting, solitaire 2-karat diamond as well as 4 brills. It was stolen from
her house. On a relevant date, while she was talking to Garcia, an owner
of a restaurant, she recognized the ring on the latters finger and asked
how she acquired the same. Garcia averred that she bought it from her
comadre. Guevarra made Garcia know that the ring was stolen from her
place days before. It was ascertained the ring was indeed Guevarras but
despite written demands, Garcia refused to return the ring.
HELD:
One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may
recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only
defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public
sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing
the price paid therefore. Guevarra who was unlawfully deprived of the ring
was entitled to recover it from de Garcia who was found in possession of
the same. The only exception provided by law is when the possessor
acquired the property through a public sale, in which case, the owner
cannot recover without reimbursement.
124 DIZON V. SUNTAY
47 SCRA 160
FACTS:
Suntay was the owner of a diamond ring. On a relevant date, she and
Sison entered into a transaction wherein Sison would sell the diamond ring
on a commission basis. Both parties knew each other for a long time and
that there was already a prior transaction between the two wherein Sison
sold on commission another piece of jewelry owned by Suntay. As days
passed with no return of Sison, Suntay made demands. The ring could not
be returned since it was pledged to Dizons pawnshop, without the consent
of Suntay. Suntay insisted on the return of her ring and Sison then gave
her the pawnshop ticket. Upon knowledge of the pledge, she filed a case
of estafa against Sison as well as sent a written demand to Dizon for the
return of the ring. Dizon refused to do so.
HELD:
One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may
recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only
defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public
sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing
the price paid therefore. Suntay who was unlawfully deprived of the ring
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 66 of 123
was entitled to recover it from Dizon who was found in possession of the
same.
In the present case, not only has the ownership and the origin of the ring
misappropriated been unquestionably proven but also that Sison has
fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of and pledged them contrary to
agreement, with no ownership, and to the prejudice of Suntay, who was
thereby illegally deprived of said jewels. The owner has the right to
recover. He is not estopped when his property has been unlawfully
pledged by another.
125 EDCA PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTING CORP. V. SANTOS
184 SCRA 614
FACTS:
On a relevant date, one person who identified himself as Professor Jose
Cruz placed an order through telephone with Edca Publishing. He ordered
400+ books and issued a personal check as payment. Then he sold some
of the books to Santos who, after verifying the sellers ownership from the
invoice shown, paid Cruz. Meanwhile, Edca being suspicious over the
second order placed by Cruz verified with De La Salle College where he had
claimed to be dean and was informed that no such person was under its
employ. It was also found out that there was no account with the bank
against which he had drawn his check. It was later found out that his real
name was Tomas de la Pena. Edca reported this to the police and through
an entrapment, de la Pena was captured. On the same date, Edca sought
the assistance of the police in recovery of the books bought from it. They
forced their way inside Santos store and seized the books without any
warrant.
HELD:
First, the contention of petitioner that Santos has not established
ownership over the disputed books because they have not even shown the
receipt evidencing the purchase, is without merit. The possession of
movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.
Second, Santos acquired the books in good faith as found by the lower
courts. She first ascertained the ownership and relied on the invoice
shown to her by de la Pena. Santos was in the business of buying and
selling books and often deal with hard-up sellers who urgently have to part
with their books at reduced prices.
Third, and on the real issue, on whether Edca had been unlawfully deprived
of the books, Edca argued that the impostor acquired no title to the books

because of the lack of funds in the check issued and want of consideration.
This is without merit. Nonpayment of purchase price only gives rise to the
right to demand payment or rescission of the contract.
Actual delivery was made to the impostor and thus, ownership was
acquired by him. Non-payment was a matter privy to him and Edca and
doesn't involve Santos who later acquired the books.
126 LEDESMA V. CA
213 SCRA 195
FACTS:
Two motor vehiclesHonda Gemini and Holden Premiere Modelwere
purchased from Citiwide Motors by a person who identified himself as Jojo
Consunji. He bought the vehicles purportedly for his father. Upon delivery
to him of the vehicles, he paid a managers check drawn against PCIB. The
check though was dishonored by the bank on the ground that the checks
value has been materially altered. This was reported to the police
authorities and it was found out that the person misrepresenting himself
was actually Suarez who had a long line of criminal cases against him for
his modus operandi. The Holden car was recovered after being abandoned
somewhere in Quezon City. The Honda on the other hand, was discovered
to be sold to Ledesma. Ledesma averred he purchased the vehicle in good
faith from one Neyra, as evidenced by his certificate of registration.
Citiwide Motors was able to recover.
HELD:
There was a perfected unconditional contract of sale between Citiwide
Motors and Suarez. The subsequent dishonor of the check merely
amounted to failure of consideration which doesn't render a contract of sale
void, but merely allows the prejudiced party to sue for specific performance
or rescission of the sale.
This being the case, Citiwide motors wasn't unlawfully deprived of the
property. It is thus not entitled to the return of the vehicle from Ledesma
who bought the property in good faith and for consideration.
127 CHUA KAI V. KAPUNAN
104 PHIL 110
FACTS:
Soto purchased from Youngstown Hardware 700 galvanized iron sheets and
round iron bars. He issued as payment a check drawn against Security
Bank. Soto then sold the sheets, some of them to Chua Hai. Meanwhile,
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 67 of 123
the check issued for payment was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
This prompted the hardware store to file a case of estafa against Soto and
prayed for the return of the sheets. This was opposed by Chua on the part
of the sheets he purchased. Notwithstanding this opposition, the court
ordered for its return.
HELD:
To deprive Chua, who was in good faith, of the possession of the sheets,
may it be temporarily or permanently, is in violation of the rule laid down
in Article 559. Possession of chattels in good faith is equivalent to title,
until ordered by the proper court to restore the thing to the owner who was
illegally derpived thereof. Until such decree is issued, the possessor as
presumptive owner is entitled to the enjoyment and holding of the thing.
Further, the hardware store or Ong was not unlawfully deprived of the
sheets. There was a perfected contract of sale between it and Soto. There
was delivery, by virtue of which, Soto was able to acquire title over the
sheets and bars. The failure of the buyer to pay the purchase price doesn't
automatically revest ownership to the seller until the contract of sale has
been first rescinded or resolved. Hence, until the contract between Soto
and Ong has been set aside by the competent court, the validity of Chuas
possession cannot be disputed and his right to possession thereof should
be respected.
USUFRUCT
USUFRUCT IN GENERAL
Art. 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. (467)
CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF USUFRUCT
Right to enjoy the property of another, with the obligation of
preserving its form and substance, unless the title containing it or
the law provides otherwise
Formula: jus utendi and jus fruendi equals usufruct; jus
disponendi equals naked ownership
CHARACTERISTICS OR ELEMENTS OF USUFRUCT
1. Essential characteristics
a. It is a real right
b. It is of temporary nature or duration
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 68 of 123

c. Its purpose is to enjoy the benefits and derive the OF THE RIGHT the owner, or by a duly not be the owner
advantages from the object as a consequence of normal authorized agent,
use or exploitation acting in behalf of the
2. Natural characteristicsobligation of conserving and preserving owner
the form and substance of the thing AS TO ORIGIN May be created by May be created as a
3. Accidental characteristicsthose which may be present or absent contract, law, last will, rule only contract: and
depending upon the stipulation of the parties or prescription by way of exception of
law
OBJECT OF USUFRUCT AS TO CAUSE The owner is more or The owner or lessor is
1. May be real or personal property less passive, and he more or less active and
2. May be sterile or productive allows the usufructuary he makes the lessee
3. May be created over a right to enjoy the thing enjoy
given in usufruct
USUFRUCT DISTINGUISHED FROM EASEMENTS AS TO REPAIRS The usufructuary has The lessee generally
USUFRUCT EASEMENT the duty to make the has no duty to pay for
The object here may be real or This involves only real property ordinary repairs repairs
personal property AS TO OTHER A usufructuary may The lessee cannot
THINGS lease the property constitute a usufruct
What can be enjoyed here are all Easement is limited to a particular itself to another on the property leased
uses and fruits of the property use

A usufruct cannot be constituted on An easement may be constituted in
an easement but it may be favor of, or burdening a piece of
considered on the land burdened by land held in usufruct
the easement.
Usually extinguished by death of Not extinguished by the death of
usufructuary the owner of the dominant estate
USUFRUCT DISTINGUISHED FROM LEASE
BASIS USUFRUCT LEASE
AS TO EXTENT Covers all fruits and Generally covers only a
uses as a rule particular or specific
use
AS TO NATURE OF Is always a real right Is a real right only if,
THE RIGHT as in the case of a
lease over real
property, the lease is
registered, or is for
more than 1 year,
otherwise, it is only a
personal right
AS TO THE CREATOR Can be created only by The lessor may or may
Art. 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. (468)
CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT AS TO ORIGIN
1. Legalcreated by law
2. Voluntary or conventional
a. Created by the will of the parties inter vivos
b. Created mortis causa
3. Mixed
Art. 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. (469)
CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT ACCORDING TO QUANTITY OR
EXTENT
1. As to fruitstotal or partial
2. As to objectuniversal or particular

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT AS TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONS
ENJOYING THE RIGHT
1. Simple
2. Multiple
a. Simultaneous
b. Successive
Art. 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. (470)
RULES GOVERNING A USUFRUCT
1. The agreement of the parties or the title giving the usufruct
2. In case of deficiency, apply the Civil Code
RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
Art. 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. (471)
SHARE OF USUFRUCTUARY REGARDING HIDDEN TREASURE
This means that the usufructuary, not being the landowner, is not
entitled as owner, but is entitled as finderto of the treasure as
a rule, unless there is a contrary agreementif he is really the
finder
If somebody else is the finder, the usufructuary gets nothing
Art. 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.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 69 of 123
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. (472)
PENDING NATURAL OR INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
RULES
1. FRUITS PENDING AT THE BEGINNING OF USUFRUCT
a. Belong to the usufructuary
b. No necessity of refunding owner for expenses incurred
c. But without prejudice to the right of third persons
2. FRUITS PENDING AT THE TERMINATION OF USUFRUCT
a. Belong to the owner
b. But the owner must reimburse the usufructuary for
ordinary cultivation expenses and for the seeds and
similar expenses, from the proceeds of the fruits
c. Also, rights of third persons shouldnt be prejudiced
Art. 568. If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements
given in usufruct, and the usufruct should expire before the
termination of the lease, he or his heirs and successors shall
receive only the proportionate share of the rent that must be paid
by the lessee. (473)
RULE WHEN USUFRUCTUARY LEASES PROPERTY TO ANOTHER
As a rule, the lease executed by the usufructuary should
terminate at the end of the usufruct or earlier
Except in case of leases of rural lands, because in said case, if
usufruct ends earlier than the lease, the lease continues for the
remainder of the agricultural year
Art. 569. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the
usufructuary in proportion to the time the usufruct may last. (474)
Art. 570. Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive
a rent or periodical pension, whether in money or in fruits, or in the
interest on bonds or securities payable to bearer, each payment
due shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits of such right.
Whenever it consists in the enjoyment of benefits accruing from a
participation in any industrial or commercial enterprise, the date of
the distribution of which is not fixed, such benefits shall have the
same character.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
In either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be
applied in the manner prescribed in the preceding article. (475)
RULE AS TO CERTAIN RIGHTSRENT, PENSION, BENEFITS, ETC.
The things referred to in Article 570 are considered civil fruits and
shall be deemed to accrue proportionately to the naked owner and
usufructuary, for the time the usufruct lasts
Art. 571. The usufructuary shall have the right to enjoy any
increase which the thing in usufruct may acquire through
accession, the servitudes established in its favor, and, in general,
all the benefits inherent therein. (479)
INCREASES IN THE THING HELD IN USUFRUCT
1. Accessions
2. Servitudes and easements
3. All benefits inherent in the property
REASON
1. Entire jus fruendi and
2. Entire jus utendi
Art. 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. (480)
RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE THING ITSELF
1. He may personally enjoy the thing
2. He may lease the thing to another
RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE USUFRUCTUARY RIGHT ITSELF
1. He may alienate the usufructuary right
2. He may pledge or mortgage the usufructuary right but he cannot
pledge or mortgage the thing itself because he doesnt own the
thing
AMPIL QUESTION: CAN USUFRUCTUARY EXTEND A CONTRACT AND
NOT BE COTERMINOUS WITH THE USUFRUCT?
Art. 573. Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without
being consumed, gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 70 of 123
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. (481)
ABNORMAL USUFRUCT ON THINGS THAT DETERIORATE
It is true that all things deteriorate but there are some things that
deteriorate much faster than others
EFFECT OF DETERIORATION ON THE USUFRUCTUARYS LIABILITY:
IF THESE FAST DETERIORATING THINGS
Deteriorate because of normal use, the usufructuary is not
responsible
Deteriorate because of an event or act that endangers their
preservation, then even though there was no fault or negligence
or fraud on the part of the usufructuary, he is still required to
make the necessary or ordinary expenses
Deteriorate because of fraud or negligence, the usufructuary is
responsible
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. (482)
ABNORMAL USUFRUCT ON CONSUMABLE THINGS/QUASI-
USUFRUCT
The form and substance is not really preserved
Another instance of abnormal usufruct
RULES FOR THIS QUASI-USUFRUCT
1. The usufructuary can use them
2. But at the end of the usufruct, he must
a. Pay the appraised value
b. Or if there was no appraisal, return the same kind,
quality, or quantity OR pay the price current at the
termination of the usufruct

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 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)
Art. 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)
Art. 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 shall first
inform the owner of the necessity for the work. (485)
Art. 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)
USUFRUCT OF AN ACTION TO RECOVER THROUGH THE COURTS
This special usufruct deals with the right to recover by court action
1. Real property
2. Personal property
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 71 of 123
3. Real right over personal property or real property
WHAT THE USUFRUCTUARY CAN DEMAND
1. Authority to bring the action
2. Proofs needed for a recovery
EFFECT OF JUDGMENT
1. Its naked ownership belongs to the owner
2. Its usufruct belongs to him
Art. 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)
USEFUL AND LUXURIOUS IMPROVEMENTS
The usufructuary has the right to the following
1. Useful improvements
2. Luxurious improvements
But
1. He must not alter the form or substance of the property
held in usufruct
2. He is not entitled to a refund but he may
a. Either remove the improvements if no
substantial damage to the property in usufruct is
caused
b. Or set off the improvements against damages
for which he may be liable
Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may
have made on the property against any damage to the same. (488)
RIGHT TO SET-OFF IMPROVEMENTS
RULES
1. If damage exceeds the value of the improvements, usufructuary is
still liable for the difference
2. If the value of the improvements exceeds the damage, the
difference doesnt go to the usufructuary but accrues instead in
the absence of contrary stipulation in favor of the naked owner,
otherwise, it is as if the usufructuary would be entitled to a partial
refund is case

REQUISITES BEFORE A SET-OFF CAN BE MADE
1. The damage must have been caused by the usufructuary
2. The improvements must have augmented the value of the
property
Art. 581. The owner of property the usufruct of which is held by
another, may alienate it, but he cannot alter its form or substance,
or do anything thereon which may be prejudicial to the
usufructuary. (489)
ALIENATION BY NAKED OWNER
Since the jus disponendi and the title reside with the naked
owner, he retains the right to alienate the property but
o He cannot alter its form and substance
o Or do anything prejudicial to the usufructuary
A BUYER MUST RESPECT THE USUFRUCT IN CASE IT
REGISTERED OR KNOWN TO HIM
RULE IN CASE OF SUCCESSION
If the naked owner bequeathes or devises to another through a
will, the legatee or devisee must respect the usufruct
DOUBLE SALE BY NAKED OWNER
The naked owner is ordinarily not allowed to sell the usufruct to
another after having sold it first to the usufructuary but if he does
so, the rules on double sales applies
OTHER RIGHTS OF THE NAKED OWNER
Aside from the right of the naked owner to alienate the property,
he may also
a. Construct any works
b. And make any improvements
c. Or make planting thereon if rural but always, such acts
must not cause
i. Decrease in the value of the usufruct
ii. Or prejudice the right of the usufructuary
Art. 582. The usufructuary of a part of a thing held in common shall
exercise all the rights pertaining to the owner thereof with respect
to the administration and the collection of fruits or interest. Should
the co-ownership cease by reason of the division of the thing held
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 72 of 123
in common, the usufruct of the part allotted to the co-owner shall
belong to the usufructuary. (490)
USUFRUCTUARY OF A PART OF COMMON PROPERTY
A co-owner may give the usufruct of his share to another, even
without the consent of the others, unless personal considerations
are present
The usufructuary in such a case takes the owners place as to the
administration and collection of fruits and interest
EFFECT OF PARTITION
1. If there be a partition, the usufructuary continues to have the
usufruct of the part allotted to the co-owner concerned
2. If the co-owners make a partition, without the instruction of the
usufructuary, this is all right, and the partition binds said
usufructuary
IS N.B
1. The usufructuary can use entire propertyno co-owner owns or
has a stake over a specific portion
2. When usufructuary buys property, there would be extinguishment
of usufruct since there would be a merger or confusion of rights
OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
Art. 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)
OBLIGATION RE: INVENTORY AND THE SECURITY
They are not necessary before the right to the usufruct begins
They are merely necessary before physical possession and
enjoyment of property can be had, thus if the usufructuary fails to
give security the usufruct still begins but the naked owner will
have the rights granted him under Article 586
There could be usufruct without physical possession

REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKING OF THE INVENTORY
1. The owner must be previously notified
2. The condition of the immovables must be described
3. The movables must be appraised
4. As a rule, no form is required except where there are real
properties
5. Expenses are to be borne by the usufructuary
6. Effect of not making inventorysame as when the security isnt
given
7. When inventory not required
a. When no one will be injured thereby provided that the
naked owner consents
b. In case of waiver by the naked owner or the law or where
there is stipulation in contract or will
THE GIVING OF SECURITY: EXEMPTIONS
1. When no one will be injured thereby
2. When there is waiver by the naked owner or there is stipulation in
a will or contract
3. When the usufructuary is the donor of the property
4. Where there is parental usufruct
5. When there is caucion juratoria, which takes place of the bond,
and is made by taking an oath to fulfill properly the duties of a
usufructuary but this is available only under conditions prescribed
Art. 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
children's property, except when the parents contract a second
marriage. (492a)
Art. 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. (493)
EFFECT IF NO ONE WILL BE INJURED
The exemption being dependent on the naked owner
In case the naked owner refuses to make the exemption, appeal
may be made to the courts and the judge should consider all the
circumstances in deciding whether or not to give the grant
Art. 586. Should the usufructuary fail to give security in the cases
in which he is bound to give it, the owner may demand that the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 73 of 123
immovables be placed under administration, that the movables be
sold, that the public bonds, instruments of credit payable to order
or to bearer be converted into registered certificates or deposited
in a bank or public institution, and that the capital or sums in cash
and the proceeds of the sale of the movable property be invested in
safe securities.
The interest on the proceeds of the sale of the movables and that
on public securities and bonds, and the proceeds of the property
placed under administration, shall belong to the usufructuary.
Furthermore, the owner may, if he so prefers, until the
usufructuary gives security or is excused from so doing, retain in
his possession the property in usufruct as administrator, subject to
the obligation to deliver to the usufructuary the net proceeds
thereof, after deducting the sums which may be agreed upon or
judicially allowed him for such administration. (494)
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO GIVE SECURITY ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
NAKED OWNER
1. He may deliver the property to the usufructuary
2. Or the naked owner may choose retention of the property as
administrator
3. Or the naked owner may demand receivership or administration of
the real property, sale of movable, conversion or deposit of credit
instruments, etc.
ON THE RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
1. The usufructuary cannot possess the property until he gives the
security
2. The usufructuary cannot administer the property hence he cannot
a lease thereon
3. The usufructuary cannot collect credits that have matured, nor
invest them unless the Court or naked owner consents
4. But the usufructuary can alienate his right to the usufruct
RETENTION OF PROPERTY BY NAKED OWNER
Although the owner may demand the sale of movables, still he
may want to retain some of them for their artistic worth or
sentimental value, in which case, he may demand their delivery to
him provided he gives security for the payment of legal interest on
their appraised value

Art. 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)
CAUCION JURATORIA
Promise under oath
Sworn duty to take good care of the property and return the same
at the end of the usufruct
RESTRICTION ON USUFRUCTUARY
He cannot alienate or lease the property for this means he doesnt
need them
Art. 588. After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he
shall have a right to all the proceeds and benefits from the day on
which, in accordance with the title constituting the usufruct, he
should have commenced to receive them. (496)
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE SECURITY GIVEN
Art. 589. The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in
usufruct as a good father of a family. (497)
DUTY OF USUFRUCTUARY TO TAKE CARE OF PROPERTY
1. Usufruct is not terminated or extinguished by bad use
2. The usufructuary is required to make ordinary repairs in the
exercise of prudent care and to notify the owner of urgency of
extraordinary repairs and of any acts which may prove
detrimental to ownership
Art. 590. A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of
usufruct shall answer for any damage which the things in usufruct
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 74 of 123
may suffer through the fault or negligence of the person who
substitutes him. (498)
LIABILITY OF USUFRUCTUARY FOR ACTS OF THE SUBSTITUTE
The usufructuary is made liable for the acts of the substitute
Therefore, the substitute is liable to the usufructuary while the
usufructuary becomes liable to the owner
Even when there is sub-usufructuary, it is still the usufructuary
who answers to the naked owner
Art. 591. If the usufruct be constituted on a flock or herd of
livestock, the usufructuary shall be obliged to replace with the
young thereof the animals that die each year from natural causes,
or are lost due to the rapacity of beasts of prey.
If the animals on which the usufruct is constituted should all
perish, without the fault of the usufructuary, on account of some
contagious disease or any other uncommon event, the usufructuary
shall fulfill his obligation by delivering to the owner the remains
which may have been saved from the misfortune.
Should the herd or flock perish in part, also by accident and
without the fault of the usufructuary, the usufruct shall continue on
the part saved.
Should the usufruct be on sterile animals, it shall be considered,
with respect to its effects, as though constituted on fungible things.
(499a)
Art. 592. The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs
needed by the thing given in usufruct.
By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the
wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing and are
indispensable for its preservation. Should the usufructuary fail to
make them after demand by the owner, the latter may make them
at the expense of the usufructuary. (500)
DUTY TO MAKE ORDINARY REPAIRS
1. They are required by normal or natural use
2. They are needed for preservation
3. They must have occurred during the usufruct
4. They must have happened with or without the fault of the
usufructuary

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
CAN USUFRUCTUARY EXEMPT HIMSELF FROM THE DUTY TO MAKE
OR PAY FOR THE NECESSARY REPAIRS BY RENOUNCING THE
USUFRUCT?
If he had no fault, yes, but he must surrender the fruits received
If he was at fault, no
REMEDY IF USUFRUCTUARY DOESNT MAKE THE NECESSARY
REPAIRS
If naked owner had demanded the repair, and the usufructuary
still fails to do so, the owner may make them at the expense of
the usufructuary
Art. 593. Extraordinary repairs shall be at the expense of the
owner. The usufructuary is obliged to notify the owner when the
need for such repairs is urgent. (501)
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE NAKED OWNER TO MAKE EXTRAORDINARY
REPAIRS
Art. 594. If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he
shall have a right to demand of the usufructuary the legal interest
on the amount expended for the time that the usufruct lasts.
Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the
preservation of the thing, the usufructuary may make them; but he
shall have a right to demand of the owner, at the termination of the
usufruct, the increase in value which the immovable may have
acquired by reason of the repairs. (502a)
KINDS OF EXTRAORDINARY REPAIRS
1. Those caused by natural use but not needed for preservation
2. Those caused by abnormal or exceptional circumstances and
needed for preservation
3. Those caused by abnormal or exceptional circumstances but are
not needed for preservation
Art. 595. The owner may construct any works and make any
improvements of which the immovable in usufruct is susceptible, or
make new plantings thereon if it be rural, provided that such acts
do not cause a diminution in the value of the usufruct or prejudice
the right of the usufructuary. (503)
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 75 of 123
CONSTRUCTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND PLANTINGS BY THE
NAKED OWNER
Provided that the value of the usufruct is not diminished OR the
right of the usufructuary is not prejudiced
Art. 596. The payment of annual charges and taxes and of those
considered as a lien on the fruits, shall be at the expense of the
usufructuary for all the time that the usufruct lasts. (504)
WHAT CHARGES OR TAXES THE USUFRUCTUARY MUST PAY
The annual charges on the fruits
The annual taxes on the fruits
Annual taxes on the land
Art. 597. The taxes which, during the usufruct, may be imposed
directly on the capital, shall be at the expense of the owner.
If the latter has paid them, the usufructuary shall pay him the
proper interest on the sums which may have been paid in that
character; and, if the said sums have been advanced by the
usufructuary, he shall recover the amount thereof at the
termination of the usufruct. (505)
TAXES WHICH ARE IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON THE CAPITAL
1. If paid by the naked owner, he can demand legal interest on the
sum paid
2. If advanced by the usufructuary
a. Should be reimbursed the amount paid but without the
legal interest
b. Is entitled to retention until paid
Art. 598. If the usufruct be constituted on the whole of a
patrimony, and if at the time of its constitution the owner has
debts, the provisions of Articles 758 and 759 relating to donations
shall be applied, both with respect to the maintenance of the
usufruct and to the obligation of the usufructuary to pay such
debts.
The same rule shall be applied in case the owner is obliged, at the
time the usufruct is constituted, to make periodical payments, even
if there should be no known capital. (506)
WHEN USUFRUCTUARY HAS TO PAY FOR THE DEBTS OF THE NAKED
OWNER
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 76 of 123

EFFECT OF NON-NOTIFICATION
Art. 599. The usufructuary may claim any matured credits which 1. The usufructuary is liable for damages, as if they had been caused
form a part of the usufruct if he has given or gives the proper through his own fault.
security. If he has been excused from giving security or has been 2. The usufructuary cannot even make the extraordinary repairs
able to give it, or if that given is not sufficient, he shall need the needed
authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to 3. The inventory can go on but the naked owner may later point out
collect such credits. discrepancies and omissions in the inventory

The usufructuary who has given security may use the capital he
has collected in any manner he may deem proper. The usufructuary
who has not given security shall invest the said capital at interest
upon agreement with the owner; in default of such agreement, with
judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security sufficient to
preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct. (507)
Art. 602. The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with
regard to the usufruct shall be borne by the usufructuary. (512)
EXTINGUISHMENT OF USUFRUCT
Art. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:

RULES ON USUFRUCT OF A MATURED CREDIT
1. If usufructuary hasnt given security, or when he is exempted or
where was only a caucion juratoria, collection and investment can
be done only with the approval of the court or of the naked owner
2. If usufructuary has given security, collection and investments can
be done without the approval of the court or of the nsked owner
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary
intention clearly appears;
(2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted,
or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title
creating the usufruct;

Art. 600. The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be
obliged to pay the debt for the security of which the mortgage was
constituted.
Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the
payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary
for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof. (509)
USUFRUCT OF MORTGAGED IMMOVABLE
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same
person;
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting
the usufruct;

Art. 601. The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of (7) By prescription. (513a)
any act of a third person, of which he may have knowledge, that
may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership, and he shall be liable DEATH OF THE USUFRUCTUARY ENDS THE USUFRUCT.
should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused EXCEPTIONS:
through his own fault. (511) 1. In the case of multiple usufructs
2. In case there is period fixed based on the number of years that
WHEN NOTIFICATION BY THE USUFRUCTUARY IS REQUIRED would elapse before a person would reach a certain age
1. If a third party commits acts prejudicial to the rights of the 3. In case the contrary intention clearly appears
ownership
2. If urgent repairs are needed Art. 604. If the thing given in usufruct should be lost only in part,
3. If an inventory is to be made the right shall continue on the remaining part. (514)

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
EFFECT OF PARTIAL LOSS
Art. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town,
corporation, or association for more than fifty years. If it has been
constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is
abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the
usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof. (515a)
Art. 606. A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a
third person attains a certain age, shall subsist for the number of
years specified, even if the third person should die before the
period expires, unless such usufruct has been expressly granted
only in consideration of the existence of such person. (516)
USUFRUCT FOR THE TIME THAT MAY ELAPSE BEFORE A THIRD
PERSON REACHES A CERTAIN AGE
Art. 607. If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of
which a building forms part, and the latter should be destroyed in
any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have a right to
make use of the land and the materials.
The same rule shall be applied if the usufruct is constituted on a
building only and the same should be destroyed. But in such a case,
if the owner should wish to construct another building, he shall
have a right to occupy the land and to make use of the materials,
being obliged to pay to the usufructuary, during the continuance of
the usufruct, the interest upon the sum equivalent to the value of
the land and of the materials. (517)
USUFRUCT ON A BUILDING AND/OR LAND CONCERNED
THIS ARTICLE DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN:
1. A usufruct constituted both on the building and on the land
2. And a usufruct constituted only on the building
RULES
1. Usufruct on both the building and land but the building is
destroyed in any manner whatsoever before the expiration of the
period of the usufruct
a. The usufruct on the building is ended, but the usufruct on
the land continues
b. Therefore the usufructuary is still entitled to the use of
the land and the use of whatever materials of the house
remain
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 77 of 123
c. Therefore, also, if the naked owner wants to rebuild but
the usufructuary refuses, it is the usufructuary who
prevails for the use of the land is still his for the
remainder of the period
2. Usufruct on the building alone
a. The usufruct on the building ends, but the usufructuary
can still make use of whatever materials on the house
remain
b. Also, the usufructuary is entitled to the use of the land
c. But precisely because there was no usufruct on the land,
the naked owner has preferential right to its use
Art. 608. If the usufructuary shares with the owner the insurance
of the tenement given in usufruct, the former shall, in case of loss,
continue in the enjoyment of the new building, should one be
constructed, or shall receive the interest on the insurance
indemnity if the owner does not wish to rebuild.
Should the usufructuary have refused to contribute to the
insurance, the owner insuring the tenement alone, the latter shall
receive the full amount of the insurance indemnity in case of loss,
saving always the right granted to the usufructuary in the
preceding article. (518a)
PAYMENT OF INSURANCE ON THE TENEMENT HELD IN USUFRUCT
This article distinguishes between a case where both the
usufructuary and the naked owner share in the payment of the
insurance premium, and a case where it is only the naked owner
who pays because the usufructuary refused
RULES:
1. If the naked owner and the usufructuary share in the premiums
and the property is destroyed
a. If the owner constructs a new building, the usufruct
continues on the new building
b. If the owner doesnt construct a new building or rebuild,
the naked owner gets the insurance indemnity but should
pay the interest thereon to the usufructuary
2. If the naked owner pays alone for the insurance and the
usufructuary has refused to share
a. The naked owner gets the whole indemnity
b. If usufruct was on the building and the land, the usufruct
continues on the land and the materials

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
c. If usufruct was on the building alone the naked owner
may rebuild, with or without the approval of the
usufructuary, but he must pay interest on the value of
the land and the old materials that may have been used
3. If the naked owner alone paid for the insurance but there is failure
or omission
a. The effect is the same as if there was sharing but the
usufructuary must reimburse the naked owner his share
of the insurance premium
4. If the usufructuary alone pays the insurance premium
a. The insurance indemnity goes to the usufructuary alone,
with no obligation on his part to share the indemnity
with, nor give legal interest thereon to, the naked owner
b. The usufruct no doubt continues on the land for the
remaining period of the usufruct
c. The usufructuary has no obligation to construct an new
building or to rebuild
Art. 609. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public
use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace it with another
thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the
usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the indemnity for
the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the latter
alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
(519)
RULES IN CASE OF EXPROPRIATION
1. If naked owner alone was given the indemnity, he has the option
a. To replace with equivalent thing
b. Or to pay to the usufructuary the legal interest on the
usufruct
2. If both the naked owner and the usufructuary were separately
given indemnity, each owns the indemnity given to him, the
usufruct is totally extinguished
3. If usufructuary alone was given the indemnity, he must give it to
the naked owner and compel the latter to return either the
interest or to replace the property
Art. 610. A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in
usufruct; but if the abuse should cause considerable injury to the
owner, the latter may demand that the thing be delivered to him,
binding himself to pay annually to the usufructuary the net
proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 78 of 123
compensation which may be allowed him for its administration.
(520)
EFFECT OF BAD USE ON THE PROPERTY HELD IN USUFRUCT
1. Bad usewhich doesnt cause considerable injury to the naked
owner
2. Bad usewhich causes considerable injury to the naked owner
a. Usufruct continues but naked owner can demand delivery
to and administration by him but he will be obliged to pay
net proceeds to usufructuary
Art. 611. A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at
the time of its constitution shall not be extinguished until death of
the last survivor. (521)
RULES IN CASE OF MULTIPLE USUFRUCT
1. If constituted simultaneously, it is evident that all the
usufructuaries must be alive at the time of constitution. Here, it is
the death of the last survivor which, among other cases,
terminates the usufruct
2. If constituted successively, Article 611 also applies
a. If the successive usufructs were constituted by virtue of
the donation, all the donees-usufructuaries must be living
at the time of the constitution-donation of the usufruct
b. If the successive usufructs were constituted by virtue of a
last will, there should only be two successive
usufructuaries, and both must have been alive at the
time of the testators death
Art. 612. Upon the termination of the usufruct, the thing in usufruct
shall be delivered to the owner, without prejudice to the right of
retention pertaining to the usufructuary or his heirs for taxes and
extraordinary expenses which should be reimbursed. After the
delivery has been made, the security or mortgage shall be
cancelled. (522a)
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AT THE TERMINATION OF THE
USUFRUCT
1. On the part of the usufructuary
a. Must return the property to the naked owner
b. To retain the property till he is reimbursed for taxes on
the capital and indispensable extraordinary repairs and
expenses
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 79 of 123

c. To remove removable improvements or set them off A life usufruct constituted on the rentals of the building located on a certain
against damages he has caused place includes the rentals on both the building and on the land on which it
2. On the part of the naked owner is erected, because the building cannot exist without the land. Hence, the
a. Must cancel the security or mortgage usufruct isnt extinguished by the destruction of the building, for under the
b. Must in case of rural leases, respect leases made by the law, usufruct is extinguished only by the total loss of the thing subject of
usufructuary till the end of the agricultural year the encumbrance.
c. Make reimbursements to the usufructuary in the proper
cases 130 BALURAN V. NAVARRO
79 SCRA 309
CASE DIGESTS: USUFRUCT
FACTS:
128 GABOYA V. CUI Spouses Paraiso entered into a barter agreement with the spouses Baluran.
38 SCRA 85 The former transferred use of their residential house in favor of the latter
in exchange for the latters riceland.
FACTS:
Don Mariano sold his three lots prodiviso to his three children. One of his HELD:
children, due to lack of funds, wasnt able to purchase part of the land. No barter agreement for purposes of transferring ownership can be inferred
This reverted back to the father. As part of the sale, the father reserved when it is clear that the parties merely intended to transfer material
for himself the usufruct of the property. He co-owned the land with his possession thereof.
children then. A building was then constructed in a portion of the land,
wherein rentals was given to the father. Thereafter, the two children who EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES
were co-owners obtained a loan, secured by a mortgage, with authority of
the father, to construct a commercial building. The father alleges that EASEMENTS IN GENERAL
since he has usufruct over the land, he has usufruct or share in the rentals
earned through the constructed building. EASEMENT DEFINED
Encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of a
HELD: community or one or more persons or for the benefit of another
The reserved right of vendor on a parcel of land doesnt include rentals immovable belonging to a different owner
from the buildings subsequently constructed on the vacant lots, but that it
did entitle the usufructuary to a reasonable rental for the portion of the DIFFERENT KINDS OF EASEMENTS
land being occupied by the building.

129 VDA. DE ALBAR V. CARANGDANG Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed
upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging
106 PHIL 855
to a different owner.
FACTS:
Dona Rosario Fabie was the owner of a parcel of land with a building The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is
called the dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the
constructed thereon. Upon her death, she bequeathed the naked
ownership to Rosario Grey while the usufruct to Josefa. Thereafter, a fire servient estate. (530)
broke out and the building constructed on the land was destroyed. Then a
Chinaman offered to lease the property and Josefa nows demand a share in REAL EASEMENT DEFINED
the rentals given by the lessor. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a
HELD: different owner.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 80 of 123

Art. 614. Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a Continuous easements are those the use of which is or may be
community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered incessant, without the intervention of any act of man.
estate does not belong. (531)
Discontinuous easements are those which are used at intervals and
PERSONAL EASEMENT DISTINGUISHED FROM USUFRUCT depend upon the acts of man.
PERSONAL EASEMENT USUFRUCT
Cannot be alienated Generally can be alienated Apparent easements are those which are made known and are
The use is specifically designated The use has a broader scope, and in continually kept in view by external signs that reveal the use and
general comprehends all the enjoyment of the same.
possible uses of the thing
Nonapparent easements are those which show no external
indication of their existence. (532)
CHARACTERISTICS OF EASEMENT
1. A real rightaction in rem is possible against the possessor of the
Art. 616. Easements are also positive or negative.
servient estate
2. Imposable only on anothers property
A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the
3. It is a jus in re alienareal right that may be alienated although
servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or
the naked ownership is maintained
of doing it himself, and a negative easement, that which prohibits
4. It is a limitation or encumbrance on the servient estate for
the owner of the servient estate from doing something which he
anothers benefit
could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. (533)
a. It is essential that there be benefit
b. It is not essential that the benefit be exercised
CLASSIFICATION OF EASEMENTS
c. It is not essential for the benefit to be very great
1. According to party given the benefit
d. The benefit shouldnt be so great as to completely absorb
a. Real easementfor the benefit of another immovable
or impair the usefulness of the servient estate, for then,
belonging to a different owner
this would not be merely an encumbrance but the
b. Personal easementfor the benefit of one or more
cancellation of the rights of the servient estate
persons or of a community
e. The benefit or utility goes to the dominant estate
2. According to the manner they are exercised
f. The exercise is naturally restricted by the needs of the
a. Continuous easements
dominant estate or of its owner
b. Discontinuous easements
g. Easements being an abnormal restriction on the
3. According to whether or not their existence is indicated
ownership are not presumed but may be imposed by law
a. Apparent easement
5. There is inherence
b. Non-apparent easement
6. It is indivisible
4. According to the purpose of the easement or the nature of the
7. It is intransmissible
limitation
8. It is perpetual
a. Positive easement
b. Negative easement
NO EASEMENT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
There can be no easement on personal property; only on
Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
immovables
actively or passively belong. (534)
Art. 615. Easements may be continuous or discontinuous, apparent
INSEPARABILITY OF EASEMENTS
or nonapparent.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

Independently of the immovable to which they are attached,
easements dont exist
CONSEQUENCES OF INSEPARABILITY
1. Easements cannot be sold or donated or mortgaged independently
of the real property to which they may be attached
2. Registration of the dominant estate under Torrens system without
the registration of the voluntary easements in its favor doesnt
extinguish the easements but the registration of the servient
estate without the registration of the easements burdening it
extinguishes the voluntary easements.
a. Noteactual knowledge of third persons is equivalent to
registration in that if they have actual knowledge of the
existence of the easement, they are bound by the same,
even though no registration has been made
PROVISION OF THE LAND REGISTRATION LAW
Easements shall continue to subsist and shall be held to pass with
the title of ownership until rescinded or extinguished by virtue of
the registration of the servient estate or in any other manner
Art. 618. Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided
between two or more persons, the easement is not modified, and
each of them must bear it on the part which corresponds to him.
If it is the dominant estate that is divided between two or more
persons, each of them may use the easement in its entirety,
without changing the place of its use, or making it more
burdensome in any other way. (535)
INDIVISIBILITY OF EASEMENTS
Partition or division of an estate doesnt divide the easement,
which continues to be complete in that each of the dominant
estates can exercise the whole easement over each of the servient
estate but only on the part corresponding to each of them
Art. 619. Easements are established either by law or by the will of
the owners. The former are called legal and the latter voluntary
easements. (536)
JUDICIAL EASEMENTS
When the court says that an easement exists, it is not creating
one; it merely declares the existence of an easement created
either by law or by the parties or testator
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 81 of 123
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS
Art. 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either
by virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. (537a)
HOW EASEMENTS ARE ACQUIRED
1. If continuous and apparent
a. By title
b. By prescriptionten years
2. If discontinuous and apparentonly by title
3. If continuous and non-apparentonly by title
4. If discontinuous and non-apparentonly by title
MEANING OF TITLE
1. Title here doesnt necessarily mean document
2. It means a juridical act or law sufficient to create the
encumbrance
Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements
referred to in the preceding article, the time of possession shall be
computed thus: in positive easements, from the day on which the
owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made
use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient
estate; and in negative easements, from the day on which the
owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument
acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient
estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the
easement. (538a)
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE OF EASEMENTS ACQUIRABLE BY
PRESCRIPTION: RULES
1. If the easement is positive, begin counting the period from the
day the dominant estate began to exercise it
2. If the easement is negative, begin counting from the time of
notarial prohibition was made on the servient estate
3. The notarial prohibition should be given by the owner of the
dominant estate
Art. 622. Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous
ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a
title. (539)
EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE ACQUIRED ONLY BY TITLE

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
1. Continuous non-apparent easements
2. Discontinuous apparent easements
3. Discontinuous non-apparent easements
EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
The easement of aqueduct is considered continuous and apparent
and may therefore be acquired by prescription
Art. 623. The absence of a document or proof showing the origin of
an easement which cannot be acquired by prescription may be
cured by a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate
or by a final judgment. (540a)
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE
1. Continuous non-apparent
2. Discontinuous easements
HOW PROOF MAY BE GIVEN OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE EASEMENTS
1. By deed of recognition by the servient owner
2. Final judgment
Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between
two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall
be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in
order that the easement may continue actively and passively,
unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the
contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of
them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the
execution of the deed. This provision shall also apply in case of the
division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.
(541a)
APPARENT SIGNS OF EASEMENT THAT APPARENTLY EXISTS
1. Originally no true easement exists here because there is only one
owner
2. The article speaks of apparent visible easements
3. Outward indication
4. It is not essential that there be apparent sign between the two
estates; it is important that there is an apparent sign that the
easement exists between the two estates
N.B: Immaterial period of counting prescription.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 82 of 123
RULES
1. Before the alienation, there is no true easement
2. After alienation
a. There arises an easement if the sign continues to remain
there unless there is a contrary agreement
b. There is no easement if the sign is removed or if there is
an agreement to this effect
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE
1. Whether only one or both estates is alienated
2. Even if there be only one estate but there are two portions
thereof, as long as later on there is a division of the ownership of
the said portion
3. Even in the case of division of common property, though this is
not an alienation
WHEN ARTICLE DOESNT APPLY
Doesnt apply in case both estates or both portions are alienated
to the same owner, for then there would be no true easement
unless there is a further alienation, this time, to different owners
Art. 625. Upon the establishment of an easement, all the rights
necessary for its use are considered granted. (542)
GRANT OF NECESSARY RIGHTS FOR THE USE OF THE EASEMENT
1. Unless the necessary rights are also granted, the right to the
easement itself is rendered nugatory
2. Necessary rights include repair, maintenance, accessory
easements, such as the right of way if the easement is for the
drawing of water
3. Termination of the principal easement necessarily ends all the
secondary or accessory easements
Art. 626. The owner of the dominant estate cannot use the
easement except for the benefit of the immovable originally
contemplated. Neither can he exercise the easement in any other
manner than that previously established. (n)
USE OF THE EASEMENT FOR BENEFIT OF THE IMMOVABLE
ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS OF THE DOMINANT
AND SERVIENT ESTATES
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 83 of 123

Art. 627. The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own
expense, on the servient state any works necessary for the use and
preservation of the servitude, but without altering it or rendering it
more burdensome.
For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate,
and shall choose the most convenient time and manner so as to
cause the least inconvenience to the owner of the servient estate.
(543a)
Art. 628. Should there be several dominant estates, the owners of
all of them shall be obliged to contribute to the expenses referred
to in the preceding article, in proportion to the benefits which each
may derive from the work. Any one who does not wish to
contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the OBLIGATIONS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
benefit of the others.
If the owner of the servient estate should make use of the
easement in any manner whatsoever, he shall also be obliged to
contribute to the expenses in the proportion stated, saving an
agreement to the contrary. (544)
Art. 629. The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any
manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.
Nevertheless, if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the
manner established for the use of the easement, the same should RIGHTS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or
should prevent him from making any important works, repairs or
improvements thereon, it may be changed at his expense, provided
he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a
way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant
estate or to those who may have a right to the use of the
easement. (545)
Art. 630. The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of
the portion on which the easement is established, and may use the
same in such a manner as not to affect the exercise of the
easement. (n) OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
RIGHTS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
1. To exercise the easement and all necessary rights for its use
including accessory easement
2. To make on the servient estate all works necessary the use and
preservation of the servitude but
a. This must be at his own expense
b. He must notify the servient owner
c. Select convenient time and manner
d. He must not alter the easement nor render it more
burdensome
3. To ask for mandatory injunction to prevent impairment or
obstruction in the exercise of the easement as when the owner of
the servient estate obstructs the right of way by building a wall or
fence
4. To renounce totally the easement if he desires exemption ffrom
contribution to expenses
1. He cannot alter the easement
2. He cannot make it more burdensome
a. Thus he cannot use the easement except for movable
originally contemplated
b. In the easement of right of way, he cannot increase the
agreed width of the path nor deposit soil or materials
outside of the boundaries agreed upon
3. If there be several dominant estates, each must contribute to
necessary repairs and expenses in proportion to the benefits
received by each estate
1. To retain ownership and possession of the portion of his land
affected by the easement
2. To make use of the easement, unless deprived by stipulation
provided that the exercise of the easement isnt adversely affected
and provided further that he contributes to the expenses in
proportion to the benefits received, unless there is contrary
stipulation
3. To change the location of a very inconvenient easement provided
that an equally convenient substitute is made, without injury to
the dominant estate
1. He cannot impair the use of the easement
2. He must contribute to the expenses in case he uses the easement,
unless there is contrary stipulation
3. In case of impairment, to restore conditions to the status quo at
his expense plus damages

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 84 of 123

4. To pay for the damages incurred for the changes of location or
form of the easement
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS
Art. 631. Easements are extinguished:
(1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the
dominant and servient estates;
(2) By nonuser for ten years; with respect to discontinuous
easements, this period shall be computed from the day on which
they ceased to be used; and, with respect to continuous easements,
from the day on which an act contrary to the same took place;
(3) When either or both of the estates fall into such condition
that the easement cannot be used; but it shall revive if the
subsequent condition of the estates or either of them should again
permit its use, unless when the use becomes possible, sufficient
time for prescription has elapsed, in accordance with the provisions
of the preceding number;
(4) By the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the
condition, if the easement is temporary or conditional;
(5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate;
(6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the
dominant and servient estates. (546a)
Art. 633. If the dominant estate belongs to several persons in
common, the use of the easement by any one of them prevents
prescription with respect to the others. (548)
EFFECT ON PRESCRIPTION OF USE BY ONE CO-OWNER OF THE
DOMINANT ESTATE
The use benefits the other co-owners, hence, there will be no
prescription even with respect to their own shares
REASON FOR THIS ARTICLE
The easement is indivisible
CASE DIGESTS: EASEMENTS
131 RELOVA V. LAVAREZ
9 PHIL 149
FACTS:
Plaintiff is an owner of a rice land being irrigated through an aqueduct. A
dam existed in the land of defendant which controls the water in the
aqueduct. When plaintiff was preparing to plant, the defendant destroyed
the dam causing damage to plaintiff.
HELD:
The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an
irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of
more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of
prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a corresponding
servitude.

Art. 632. The form or manner of using the easement may prescribe 132 SOLID MANILA V. BIO HONG TRADING
as the easement itself, and in the same way. (547a) 195 SCRA 748

PRESCRIPTION RE VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS FACTS:

1. The easement may itself prescribe Defendant purchased property which had an alleyway for the passage of
2. The form or manner of using may also prescribe in the same people living in the same vicinity. It closed the alleyway.
manner as the easement itself
HELD:
PRESCRIPTION RE LEGAL EASEMENTS The vendee of real property in which a servitude or easement exists didnt
1. Some legal easements dont prescribe acquire the right to close that servitude or put up obstructions thereon, to
2. But some legal easement do prescribe, as in the case of the prevent the public from using it.
servitude of natural drainage
133 CID V. JAVIER
108 PHIL 850

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 85 of 123

FACTS: HELD:
Javier sought to enforce easement against Cid, claiming that she orally The easement of light and view and altiuus non tollendi go together
prohibited Cid from impairing the easement. because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the
servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window.
HELD:
Oral prohibition is not the prohibition that the law contemplates with regard 137 AMOR V. FLORENTINO
negative easements. 74 PHIL 404

134 CORTES V. YU-TIBO FACTS:

2 PHIL 24

FACTS: HELD:
Cortes sought to enforce easement of light and view against Yu-tibo,
claiming to have opened the windows in their house for around 59 years.
138 GARGANTOS V. TAN YANON
HELD: 108 PHIL 888
An easement of light and view is a negative easement. A notarial
prohibition is needed to commence prescriptive period. FACTS:
Sanz owned property which he partitioned into 3. On lot #2 was a house
An easement of light and view is only positive in relation to party walls and which obtained light from lot #3. A camarin was constructed over lot #3.
apparent signs of easement. The owner of the third lot was able to secure permits for the demolition of
the camarin to pave way for the construction of a warehouse and house.
135 ABELLANA V. CA This was opposed by the owner of lot #2.
208 SCRA 316
HELD:
FACTS: No prescription needed. There exists an apparent sign of easement.
Petitioners were owners of property abutting a subdivision. They claim an
easement against the subdivision owner for an alleged footpath that they 139 VALDERAMA V. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CENTRAL
had on the land since time immemorial. 48 PHIL 492

HELD: FACTS:
A footpath may be apparent but it is not a continuous easement. It cannot Case regarding the milling contracts and use of the railroad in going to the
be acquired through prescription but only through title. sugar central

136 RONQUILLO V. ROCO HELD:

103 PHIL 84
FACTS:
Florentino was the original owner of a warehouse and house. The house
had 4 windows which receives light from the warehouse. These two
properties were subsequently inherited by two different parties. One of
them sold the warehouse to another. The warehouse was demolished for
the construction of a new structure.
1. In a contract establishing an easement of way in favor of a sugar
company for the construction of a railroad for the transportation of
sugar cane from the servient estates to the mill, it is contrary to
the nature of the contract to pretend that only sugar cane grown
in the servient estates can be transported on said railroad,
because it is a well-settled rule that things serve their owner by
reason of ownership and not by easement. That an easement
being established in favor of the sugar company, the owners of

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 86 of 123

the servient estates cannot limit its use to the transportation of
their cane, there being no express stipulation to that effect.
2. An easement of way is not more burdensome by causing to pass
thereon wagons carrying goods pertaining to persons who arent
owners of the servient estates and at all time the person entitled
to the easement may please, for in such case the easement
continues to be the same.
house. Thereafter, the second lot was sold to spouses Sim who blocked
the sewage pipe.
HELD:
Absent any statement abolishing the easement of drainage the use of the
septic tank is continued by operation of law. The new owners of the
servient estate cannot impair the use of the easement.

140 JAVELLANA V. IAC 143 ALCANTARA V. RITA

172 SCRA 280 372 SCRA 364

FACTS:
Marsall owned a parcel of land adjoining a river and elementary school.
Before owning the land, there existed already a main canal, transversing
the property from the river up to the area of the school. Javellana together
with others closed the canal and destroyed the dam, leading to damages
caused to those benefiting from the canal.
HELD:
It is violative against the owner of a dominant estate to have closed the
canals and destroyed the dam which supplies water to the dominant
estate.
FACTS:
Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusal
under PD1517, claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint was
dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.
HELD:
Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of another to
facilitate gathering of fruits, this would be in the nature of a personal
easement.
LEGAL EASEMENTS

141 BENEDICTO V. CA GENERAL PROVISIONS

25 SCRA 145
FACTS:
Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto.
An easement of way was annotated in the certificates of title.
Subsequently, the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras who
then closed and walled the part of land serving as easement of way.
Art. 634. Easements imposed by law have for their object either
public use or the interest of private persons. (549)
LEGAL EASEMENTS DEFINED
They are the easements imposed by the law, and which have for
their object either public use or the interest of private persons

HELD: DIFFERENT LEGAL EASEMENTS

The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all the
certificates of title. Absence of anything that would show mutual 1. Easements relating to waters
agreement to extinguish the easement, the easement persists. 2. Right of way
3. Light and view
142 TANEDO V. BERNAD 4. Party wall
165 SCRA 86 5. Drainage of building
6. Intermediate distances
FACTS: 7. Easement against nuisance
Cardenas was the owner of two lots. One lot was sold to Tanedo and the 8. Lateral and subjacent support
other was mortgaged. The mortgaged lot had an four-storey apartment
and house constructed thereon with a septic tank. The other lot had on it a

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 635. All matters concerning easements established for public
or communal use shall be governed by the special laws and
regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence thereof, by the
provisions of this Title. (550)
Art. 636. Easements established by law in the interest of private
persons or for private use shall be governed by the provisions of
this Title, without prejudice to the provisions of general or local
laws and ordinances for the general welfare.
These easements may be modified by agreement of the interested
parties, whenever the law does not prohibit it or no injury is
suffered by a third person. (551a)
HOW LEGAL EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE GOVERNED
1. Agreement of the interested parties
2. In default the above, of general or local laws and ordinances for
the general welfare
3. In default of the above, the Civil Code
EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS
Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which
naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the
higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with
them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will
impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate
make works which will increase the burden. (552)
ENUMERATION OF LEGAL EASEMENT RELATING TO WATERS
1. Natural drainage of lands
2. Natural drainage of buildings
3. Easement on riparian banks for navigation, floatage, fishing and
salvage
4. Easement of a dam
5. Easement for drawing water or for watering animals
6. Easement of aqueduct
7. Easement for the construction of a stop luck or sluice
WHAT LOWER ESTATES ARE OBLIGED TO RECEIVE
1. Water which naturally and without the intervention of man
descends from the higher estates
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 87 of 123
2. The stones and earth carried by the waters
DUTIES OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
The owner cannot construct works that would impede the
easement
DUTIES OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
1. He cannot make works which will increase the burden
2. But he may construct works preventing erosion
3. If the descending waters are the result of artificial development or
proceed from industrial establishments recently set up, or are the
overflow from irrigation dams, the owner of the lower estate shall
be entitled to compensation for his loss or damage
CONTRACT MAY EXTINGUISH LEGAL EASEMENT
THERE IS NO NEED FOR INDEMNITY AS LONG AS THERE IS
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS
Art. 638. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of
private ownership, are subject throughout their entire length and
within a zone of three meters along their margins, to the easement
of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing
and salvage.
Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are,
furthermore, subject to the easement of towpath for the exclusive
service of river navigation and floatage.
If it be necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private
ownership, the proper indemnity shall first be paid. (553a)
EASEMENT ALONG RIPARIAN BANKS
RIVER BANK, DEFINED
A bank is a lateral strip of shore washed by the water during high
tides but which cannot be said to be flooded or inundated
THE EASEMENTS ALLOWED
1. On banks of rivers; a public easement for
a. Navigation
b. Floatage
c. Fishing
d. Salvage

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
2. On banks of navigable or floatable riversalso the easement of
tow path
PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY
1. If the land be of public ownershipno indemnity
2. If the land be of private ownershipindemnity
WIDTH OF ZONE BURDENED
1. Three meters along the river margins, for navigation, floatage,
fishing or salvage
2. Tow path2 meters if for animals and 1 meter if for pedestrians
Art. 639. Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river
or brook, or for the use of any other continuous or discontinuous
stream, it should be necessary to build a dam, and the person who
is to construct it is not the owner of the banks, or lands which must
support it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a dam,
after payment of the proper indemnity. (554)
EASEMENT CONCERNING A DAM
Art. 640. Compulsory easements for drawing water or for watering
animals can be imposed only for reasons of public use in favor of a
town or village, after payment of the proper indemnity. (555)
EASEMENTS FOR DRAWING WATER OR FOR WATERING ANIMALS
1. They can be imposed only for reasons of public use
2. They must be in favor of a town or village
3. Proper indemnity must be paid
Art. 641. Easements for drawing water and for watering animals
carry with them the obligation of the owners of the servient estates
to allow passage to persons and animals to the place where such
easements are to be used, and the indemnity shall include this
service. (556)
EASEMENTS COVERED
Easements for drawing water and watering animals but there is
also an accessory easement combined with easement of right of
way
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH AN EASEMENT TO EXIST
1. It must be for public use
2. It must be in favor of a town or village
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 88 of 123
3. The right must be sought not by one individual but by the town or
village, through its legal representative
4. The right of way should have a maximum width of 10 meters,
which cannot be altered by the owners of the servient estates
although the direction of the path may indeed be changed,
provided that the use of the easement is not prejudiced
Art. 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any
water of which he can dispose shall have the right to make it flow
through the intervening estates, with the obligation to indemnify
their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon
which the waters may filter or descend. (557)
EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
The right to make water flow through intervening estates in order
that one may make use of said waters
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
4 REQUISITES FOR THE LEGAL EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
1. That he can dispose of the water
2. That it is sufficient for the use for which it is intended;
3. That the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the
least onerous to third persons;
4. To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner
determined by the laws and regulations.
Art. 643. One desiring to make use of the right granted in the
preceding article is obliged:
(1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is
sufficient for the use for which it is intended;
(2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most
convenient and the least onerous to third persons;
(3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner
determined by the laws and regulations. (558)
Art. 644. The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be
imposed on buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on
orchards or gardens already existing. (559)

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 645. The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of
the servient estate from closing or fencing it, or from building over
the aqueduct in such manner as not to cause the latter any
damage, or render necessary repairs and cleanings impossible.
(560)
Art. 646. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be
considered as continuous and apparent, even though the flow of
the water may not be continuous, or its use depends upon the
needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days
or hours. (561)
Art. 647. One who for the purpose of irrigating or improving his
estate, has to construct a stop lock or sluice gate in the bed of the
stream from which the water is to be taken, may demand that the
owners of the banks permit its construction, after payment of
damages, including those caused by the new easement to such
owners and to the other irrigators. (562)
CONSTRUCTION OF A STOP LOCK OR SLUICE GATE
1. Purpose must be for irrigation or improvement
2. The construction must be on the estate of another
3. Damages must be paid
4. Third persons shouldnt be prejudiced
Art. 648. The establishment, extent, form and conditions of the
servitudes of waters, to which this section refers, shall be governed
by the special laws relating thereto insofar as no provision therefor
is made in this Code. (563a)
PROVISIONS THAT GOVERN EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS
Civil code provisions on easement of waters prevail over special
laws
In case of conflict between special laws and the new CC, the latter
prevails
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right
may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other
immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate
outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way
through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper
indemnity.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 89 of 123
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use
may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate,
establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of
the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage
caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the
cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering
of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way,
the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused
by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable
is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEFINED
Easement or privilege by which one person in a particular class of
persons is allowed to pass over another land, usually through one
particular path or line
REQUISITES FOR THE EASEMENT
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
PROPER INDEMNITY
1. If the passage is permanent, pay the value of the land occupied
by the path plus damages
2. If temporary, pay for the damages caused
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. Private
2. public
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the
point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant
estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (565)

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
N.B: Adequacy to dominant estate
Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be that
which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may
accordingly be changed from time to time. (566a)
WIDTH OF PATH
The width may be modified from time to time depending on the
reasonable needs of the dominant estate
Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or
partition, is surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger,
or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without
indemnity.
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the
donee for the establishment of the right of way. (567a)
RULE IF LAND OF VENDOR IS ISOLATED FROM THE HIGHWAY
Indemnity included in the purchase pricethe buyer is the owner
of the dominant estate
Art. 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the
grantor that becomes isolated, he may demand a right of way after
paying a indemnity. However, the donor shall not be liable for
indemnity. (n)
RULES IF GRANTOR OR GRANTEES LAND IS ENCLOSED
1. If the enclosing estate is that of the grantor, the grantee doesnt
pay indemnity for the easement
2. If the enclosed estate is that of the grantor, the grantor must pay
indemnity
Art. 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs
shall be made by the owner of the dominant estate. A
proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said owner
to the proprietor of the servient estate. (n)
OWNERSHIP OF, REPAIRS AND TAXES ON, THE PATH
1. Even though permanent, the path belongs to the servient estate,
and he pays all the taxes
2. But the dominant estate
a. Should pay for repairs
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 90 of 123
b. Should pay proportionate share of taxes to the servient
estate
Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases
to be necessary because its owner has joined it to another abutting
on a public road, the owner of the servient estate MAY DEMAND
that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have
received by way of indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall
be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement.
The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving
access to the isolated estate.
In both cases, the public highway must substantially meet the
needs of the dominant estate in order that the easement may be
extinguished. (568a)
CAUSES FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF
WAY
1. Opening of a new road
2. Joining the dominant estate to another
EXTINGUISHMENT NOT AUTOMATIC
The extinguishment is not automatic
The law says that the servient estate may demand
It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the easement remains
and he has no duty to refund the indemnity
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE TO A VOLUNTARY EASEMENT
NO RETURN OF INDEMNITY IN CASE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT
Art. 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair,
improvement, alteration or beautification of a building, to carry
materials through the estate of another, or to raise therein
scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of
such estate shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving
payment of the proper indemnity for the damage caused him.
(569a)
TEMPORARY EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WWAY
1. The easement here is necessarily only temporary, nonetheless
proper indemnity must be given
2. Indispensable is not to be construed literally

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
3. The owner can make use of Article 656
Art. 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock
known as animal path, animal trail or any other, and those for
watering places, resting places and animal folds, shall be governed
by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the
absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place.
Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the animal path shall
not exceed in any case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail
that of 37 meters and 50 centimeters.
Whenever it is necessary to establish a compulsory easement of
the right of way or for a watering place for animals, the provisions
of this Section and those of Articles 640 and 641 shall be observed.
In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters. (570a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK:
WIDTH
1. Animal path75 meters
2. Animal trail37 meters and 50 centimeters
3. Cattle10 meters
CASE DIGESTS: LEGAL EASEMENTS
144 COSTABELLA CORP. V. CA
193 SCRA 333
FACTS:
Petitioner was the owner of a beachfront property, it later constructed a
beach resort thereto. The private respondents on the other hand were the
owners of the adjoining properties. Prior to the construction of the resort,
the property was being used as passageway in going to the provincial road
and city proper. Upon the construction of the first phase, pathway was
closed but they were given an alternate route.
HELD:
The following are the requirements for the compulsory easement of right of
way
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 91 of 123
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
The private respondents failed to show compliance with the
abovementioned requirements.
145 VILLANUEVA V. VELASCO
346 SCRA 99
FACTS:
Spouses Gabriel were the previous owners of a house which encroached on
the easement of right of way of Sebastian and Lotilla. By virtue of this, a
case was filed against the spouses. Thereafter, the house was sold to
Villanueva. The trial court and appellate court held in favor of Sebastian
and Lotilla and ordered the demolition of the house. This was questioned
by Villanueva on claims that he acquired the property under a clean title
and that he wasnt a party to the previous case.
HELD:
A legal easement is one mandated by law, constituted for public use and
for private interest and becomes a continuous property right.
The following are the essential requisites for a compulsory right of way
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
146 CRISTOBAL V. CA
291 SCRA 122
FACTS:
Cristobal owned a house and lot in Visayas Avenue Extension. Ledesma on
the other hand was the owner of the adjoining subdivision, which included
the disputed lots 1 and 2. Lots 1 and 2 were originally a part of the private
road. Upon the making of Visayas Avenue as a public road, Ledesma
petitioned the exclusion of the two disputed lots from the road. He was
granted to do so. Upon the sale of the lots to a third person, it was
discovered that there were squatters on the land and that it was being
used as a passageway by petitioners. This prompted the new owner to
enclose the lot.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
HELD:
The essential requisites for the compulsory right of way are as follows
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
In consideration of the above, mere convenience for the dominant estate is
not what is required by law as the basis for setting up the compulsory right
of way.
147 FLORO V. LLENADO
244 SCRA 713
FACTS:
Floro was the owner of a subdivision. Here comes Llenado who bought the
adjoining subdivision lot, which was formerly Emmanuel Homes. A creek
separates the property of Llenado from Floro. On the west side of
Llenados property was a rice land. On the subdivision plan of Llenados
property, there was a plan to construct an access road to McArthur
Highway but no construction was made. With the two subdivisions, it was
Floros which only had an access road. Floro allowed usage of his access
road pending negotiations but later on closed the property.
HELD:
The essential requisites are the following
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
Burden of proving the existence of the prerequisites to validly claim a
compulsory right of way lies on the owner of the dominant estate.
And it should be noted that mere convenience of the dominant estate is not
what is contemplated by the law in establishing a right of way.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 92 of 123
148 FRANSISCO V. IAC
177 SCRA 527
FACTS:
The Malinta estate was co-owned by two sisters who later donated 1/3 of
the property to their niece, 1/3 to the heirs of their deceased sister, and
1/3 was solely conveyed to Cornelia. Adjoining this estate was property of
Fransisco, fronting the Paradas road. The new co-owners then partitioned
the lot. All the frontage went to the niece. Cornelia subsequently sold her
property to Eugenio sisters who then sold it to Ramos. Ramos wanted a
right of way through Fransiscos property.
HELD:
If the enclosure or isolation was due to the proprietors own acts, then
there couldnt be any compulsory right of way.
149 QUIMEN V. CA
257 SCRA 163
FACTS:
The classic battle of an avocado tree and a sarisari store of strong
materials.
HELD:
Where the easement may be established on any of the several tenements
surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and
will cause the least damage should be chosen but if these two
circumstances dont concur in a single interest, the way which will cause
least damage should be used, even if it will not be shortest.
150 STA. MARIA V. CA
285 SCRA 163
FACTS:
Fajardos property was surrounding by different properties owned by
different people. On the northwest was Jacintos, the northeast was a
fishpond, on southwest was Cruzs and on the southeast was Sta. Marias.
It was through Sta. Marias property that there could be a less prejudicial
right of way. Fajardo filed for an easement of right of way.
HELD:
Where there are several estates surrounding the dominant estate, and the
easement may be established on any of them, the one where the way is
shortest and will cause less damage should be chosen.
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 93 of 123

245 SCRA 333

151 NATIONAL IRRIGATION AUTHORITY V. CA
340 SCRA 661
FACTS:
Ramos was the owner of a parcel of land which he bought from a
subdivision. Abutting his property were two road lots, one was the
proposed access road of the subdivision and the other was owned by a
different entity. A wall was constructed on the other constructed road lot,
preventing Ramos from passing through the road.
HELD:
To justify an easement, real necessity must be shown.
152 ABELLANA V. CA
208 SCRA 316
FACTS:
Manglapus was the grantee of a free patent. In the free patent issued to
him, there was a provision granting the government reservation for public
easements and servitudes. After he was given the patent, the NIA entered
into his premises and started constructing canals.
FACTS:
Panganibans property was surrounded by Baltazars in front, and Calimons
and Legazpis on the left and right, respectively. It was Baltazars property
which fronts the national road. Panganiban sought the right of way
through Baltazars. It was discovered that he was allowed access through
Legazpi and Calimons property when Baltazar closed his property.
HELD:
Requisites that has to be complied with before the grant of a compulsory
easement of right of way
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
155 DAVID-CHAN V. CA
268 SCRA 677

HELD:
Where the land was originally public land, and awarded by free patent with
a reservation for a legal easement of a right of way in favor of the
government, just compensation need not be paid for the taking of the part
thereof for public use as an easement of right of way.
153 ENCARNACION V. CA
195 SCRA 74
FACTS:
Encarnacions property was behind the property of De Sagun. It was the 156
latters property which was fronting the public road. Not long after,
Encarnacion engaged in the plant nursing business which flourished. His
jeepney couldnt pass through the pathway. He offered to pay for the FACTS:
widening but was denied.
HELD:
It is the needs of the dominant estate which ultimately determines the
width of the passage and these needs may vary from time to time.
154 VDA. DE BALTAZAR V. CA
FACTS:
Petitioners property is behind the property formerly owned by Singian
brothers. It was through the latters property on which Chan had a small
clearance to go to the national road. She believed that she was entitled to
a bigger clearance. The property of the brothers then was sold to
Philippine Rabbit.
HELD:
Same as above.
ALMENDRAS V. CA
GR 110067, MARCH 13, 1997
Almendras property was surrounded by different properties owned by
different peopleon the north was Pang Engs, east was Yaps, west was
Opones, and south was Bongos. Yap and Pang Eng both enclosed their
properties against Almendras. She filed for an easement of right of way.
Bongo then enclosed his property and this was followed soon after by
Opone.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 94 of 123

HELD: HOW PRESUMPTION THAT A WALL IS A PARTY WALL MAY BE

Where there are several estates surrounding the dominant estate, and the REBUTTED
easement may be established on any of them, the one where the way is 1. Title to the contrary
shortest and will cause less damage should be chosen. 2. Exterior signs to the contrary
3. Proof to the contrary
157 DIONISIO V. ORTIZ
204 SCRA 745 CONFLICT BETWEEN A TITLE AND AN EXTERIOR SIGN
A title conferring ownership in one owner prevails over a mere
FACTS: exterior sign
Petitioners were owners of contiguous lots. Adjacent to it were the lots of
private respondents. Through an agreement, they were granted a right of Art. 660. It is understood that there is an exterior sign, contrary to
way over Howmart Road, transverring through the properties of private the easement of party wall:
respondents. Petitioner then decided to partition his lot into 2, which led to
the construction of a new gate. This gate opened directly to the property (1) Whenever in the dividing wall of buildings there is a window
of one of the private respondent. Later, a steel barricade was constructed or opening;
to block the gate.
(2) Whenever the dividing wall is, on one side, straight and
HELD: plumb on all its facement, and on the other, it has similar
Easement is not compulsory if the isolation was due to the proprietors own conditions on the upper part, but the lower part slants or projects
acts. outward;

EASEMENT OF PARTY WALL
Art. 658. The easement of party wall shall be governed by the
provisions of this Title, by the local ordinances and customs insofar
as they do not conflict with the same, and by the rules of co-
ownership. (571a)
(3) Whenever the entire wall is built within the boundaries of
one of the estates;
(4) Whenever the dividing wall bears the burden of the binding
beams, floors and roof frame of one of the buildings, but not those
of the others;

PARTY WALL DEFINED (5) Whenever the dividing wall between courtyards, gardens,
Wall at the dividing line of estates and tenements is constructed in such a way that the coping sheds
Co-ownership governs the wall, hence, the party wall is the water upon only one of the estates;
necessarily a common wall
(6) Whenever the dividing wall, being built of masonry, has
Art. 659. The existence of an easement of party wall is presumed, stepping stones, which at certain intervals project from the surface
unless there is a title, or exterior sign, or proof to the contrary: on one side only, but not on the other;

(1) In dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the point of (7) Whenever lands inclosed by fences or live hedges adjoin
common elevation; others which are not inclosed.

(2) In dividing walls of gardens or yards situated in cities, In all these cases, the ownership of the walls, fences or hedges
towns, or in rural communities; shall be deemed to belong exclusively to the owner of the property
or tenement which has in its favor the presumption based on any
(3) In fences, walls and live hedges dividing rural lands. (572) one of these signs. (573)

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
EXTERIOR SIGNS NEGATIVING THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTY WALL
This article enumerates by illustration exterior signs rebutting the
presumption of there being an easement of a party wall
CONFLICTING EXTERIOR SIGNS
If one owner has signs in his favor, and some against him, they
generally cancel each other, unless it can be shown from the
purpose of the wall that it had been made for the exclusive benefit
of one
Art. 661. Ditches or drains opened between two estates are also
presumed as common to both, if there is no title or sign showing
the contrary.
There is a sign contrary to the part-ownership whenever the earth
or dirt removed to open the ditch or to clean it is only on one side
thereof, in which case the ownership of the ditch shall belong
exclusively to the owner of the land having this exterior sign in its
favor. (574)
PARTY DITCHES OR DRAINS
The presumption of party wall applies to ditches and drains
opened between two estates
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
Art. 662. The cost of repairs and construction of party walls and the
maintenance of fences, live hedges, ditches, and drains owned in
common, shall be borne by all the owners of the lands or
tenements having the party wall in their favor, in proportion to the
right of each.
Nevertheless, any owner may exempt himself from contributing to
this charge by renouncing his part-ownership, except when the
party wall supports a building belonging to him. (575)
REPAIRS ON AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY WALL
WHEN RENUNCIATION CAN BE MADE
1. The repair had already been contracted for and made
2. He still uses the wall
REQUISITES FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF THE SHARE
1. Must be total or complete
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 95 of 123
2. Must be made voluntarily and with full knowledge of the facts
3. Must be made before the expenses are incurred
4. Made with the implied condition that the other owner should make
or pay for the repairs
5. Must be of both the share in the wall and share in the land, for the
wall cannot be used without the land
Art. 663. If the owner of a building, supported by a party wall
desires to demolish the building, he may also renounce his part-
ownership of the wall, but the cost of all repairs and work
necessary to prevent any damage which the demolition may cause
to the party wall, on this occasion only, shall be borne by him.
(576)
DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING SUPPORTED BY THE PARTY WALL
Indemnification must be made for damages
Art. 664. Every owner may increase the height of the party wall,
doing at his own expense and paying for any damage which may be
caused by the work, even though such damage be temporary.
The expenses of maintaining the wall in the part newly raised or
deepened at its foundation shall also be paid for by him; and, in
addition, the indemnity for the increased expenses which may be
necessary for the preservation of the party wall by reason of the
greater height or depth which has been given it.
If the party wall cannot bear the increased height, the owner
desiring to raise it shall be obliged to reconstruct it at his own
expense and, if for this purpose it be necessary to make it thicker,
he shall give the space required from his own land. (577)
INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE PARTY WALL
1. Must do so at his own expense
2. Must pay the necessary damages caused, even if the damage be
temporary
3. Must bear the costs of maintenance of the portion added
4. Must pay for the increased cost of preservation
5. Must reconstruct if original wall cannot bear the increased height
6. Must give the additional space necessary if wall is to be thickened
EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ADDITIONS

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 665. The other owners who have not contributed in giving
increased height, depth or thickness to the wall may, nevertheless,
acquire the right of part-ownership therein, by paying
proportionally the value of the work at the time of the acquisition
and of the land used for its increased thickness. (578a)
HOW THE OTHER OWNERS MAY ACQUIRE PART-OWNERSHIP IN
THE ADDITIONS
The value of the additions at the time of acquisition by the others
should be paid
Art. 666. Every part-owner of a party wall may use it in proportion
to the right he may have in the co-ownership, without interfering
with the common and respective uses by the other co-owners.
(579a)
EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW
Art. 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others,
open through the party wall any window or aperture of any kind.
(580)
PROVISION PERTAINS TO PROHIBITION TO MAKE AN OPENING
THROUGH THE PARTY WALL
Art. 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an
easement of light and view shall be counted:
(1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through
a party wall; or
(2) From the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor
of the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall
on the dominant estate. (n)
WHEN EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW IS POSITIVE AND WHEN
NEGATIVE
1. Positiveif the window is through a party wall. Therefore the
period of prescription commences from the time the window is
opened.
a. The mere opening of the window doesnt create the
easement; it is only when after a sufficient lapse of time
the window still remains open, the easement of light and
view is created
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 96 of 123
2. Negativeif the window is through ones own wall, that is,
through a wall of the dominant estate
Art. 669. When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the
owner of a wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or
piece of land belonging to another, can make in it openings to
admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or immediately under
the ceiling, and of the size of thirty centimeters square, and, in
every case, with an iron grating imbedded in the wall and with a
wire screen.
Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the
wall in which the openings are made can close them should he
acquire part-ownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the
contrary.
He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or
by raising a wall thereon contiguous to that having such openings,
unless an easement of light has been acquired. (581a)
RESTRICTED WINDOWS
The openings or windows referred to in this article are for light,
not view, hence, the conditions or restrictions set for them
THE RESTRICTIONS THEMSELVES
1. Maximum size is 30 cm. square
2. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
3. There must be a wire screen
4. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists or
immediately under the ceiling
SANCTIONS IN CASE OF VIOLATIONS
1. He can obstruct the light
a. By constructing a higher building on his own land
b. Or by raising a blocking wall
2. If the wall becomes a party wall he can close the window, unless
there is a stipulation to the contrary
Art. 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar
projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining
land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance of two
meters between the wall in which they are made and such
contiguous property.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such
conterminous property be had, unless there be a distance of sixty
centimeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to
prescription. (582a)
Art. 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be
measured in cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall
when the openings do not project, from the outer line of the latter
when they do, and in cases of oblique view from the dividing line
between the two properties. (583)
RULES FOR REGULAR WINDOWS
1. Articles 670 and 671 deal with regular, full windows
2. Regular windows can be opened provided that the proper
distances are followed
THE PROPER DISTANCES
1. For windows having direct views, observe at least 2 meters
distance between the wall having the windows and the boundary
line
2. For windows having side or oblique views, observe a distance of at
least 50 centimeters between the boundary line and nearest edge
of the window
BUILDING RIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE
It is permissible to build even up to the boundary line provided
that no regular windows are opened
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THESE DISTANCES
DOESNT GIVE RISE TO PRESCRIPTION?
The mere non-observance of these distances doesnt give rise to
prescription because this being a negative easement, a notarial
prohibition is still required before the period of prescription will
commence to run
RULE AS TO TERRACES
Article 670 also applies to terraces if there are railings but not if
there are no railings
Art. 672. The provisions of Article 670 are not applicable to
buildings separated by a public way or alley, which is not less than
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 97 of 123
three meters wide, subject to special regulations and local
ordinances. (584a)
RULE WHEN THE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC WAY OR
ALLEY
When buildings are separated by a public way or alley, there
should be a minimum distance of 3 meters
Art. 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have
direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining
property, the owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at
less than a distance of three meters to be measured in the manner
provided in Article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less
than those prescribed in Article 670 is void. (585a)
RULE WHEN A RIGHT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED TO HAVE DIRECT VIEWS
This provision speaks of a true easement
DRAINAGE OF BUILDINGS
Art. 674. The owner of a building shall be obliged to construct its
roof or covering in such manner that the rain water shall fall on his
own land or on a street or public place, and not on the land of his
neighbor, even though the adjacent land may belong to two or
more persons, one of whom is the owner of the roof. Even if it
should fall on his own land, the owner shall be obliged to collect
the water in such a way as not to cause damage to the adjacent
land or tenement. (586a)
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EASEMENT OF DRAINAGE
OF BUILDINGS
A person who should let rain water fall on his own land and not on
the adjacent land, even if he be a co-owner of the latter
Rain water must be collected
Art. 675. The owner of a tenement or a piece of land, subject to the
easement of receiving water falling from roofs, may build in such
manner as to receive the water upon his own roof or give it another
outlet in accordance with local ordinances or customs, and in such
a way as not to cause any nuisance or damage whatever to the
dominant estate. (587)
RULE WHEN A TENEMENT OR LAND IS SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT
OF RECEIVING WATER FALLING FROM THE ROOFS

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 676. Whenever the yard or court of a house is surrounded by
other houses, and it is not possible to give an outlet through the
house itself to the rain water collected thereon, the establishment
of an easement of drainage can be demanded, giving an outlet to
the water at the point of the contiguous lands or tenements where
its egress may be easiest, and establishing a conduit for the
drainage in such manner as to cause the least damage to the
servient estate, after payment of the property indemnity. (583)
OUTLET OF RAIN WATER THROUGH SURROUNDING HOUSES:
CONDITIONS
1. Because of enclosure, there is no adequate outlet for rain water
2. The outlet must be at the point of easiest egress
3. Least possible damage
4. Payment of proper indemnity
INTERMEDIATE DISTANCES AND WORKS FOR CERTAIN
CONSTRUCTIONS AND PLANTINGS
Art. 677. No constructions can be built or plantings made near
fortified places or fortresses without compliance with the
conditions required in special laws, ordinances, and regulations
relating thereto. (589)
Art. 678. No person shall build any aqueduct, well, sewer, furnace,
forge, chimney, stable, depository of corrosive substances,
machinery, or factory which by reason of its nature or products is
dangerous or noxious, without observing the distances prescribed
by the regulations and customs of the place, and without making
the necessary protective works, subject, in regard to the manner
thereof, to the conditions prescribed by such regulations. These
prohibitions cannot be altered or renounced by stipulation on the
part of the adjoining proprietors.
In the absence of regulations, such precautions shall be taken as
may be considered necessary, in order to avoid any damage to the
neighboring lands or tenements. (590a)
NO WAIVER ALLOWED
By reason of public safety
Art. 679. No trees shall be planted near a tenement or piece of land
belonging to another except at the distance authorized by the
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 98 of 123
ordinances or customs of the place, and, in the absence thereof, at
a distance of at least two meters from the dividing line of the
estates if tall trees are planted and at a distance of at least fifty
centimeters if shrubs or small trees are planted.
Every landowner shall have the right to demand that trees
hereafter planted at a shorter distance from his land or tenement
be uprooted.
The provisions of this article also apply to trees which have grown
spontaneously. (591a)
RULES WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANTING OF TREES
1. Tall trees2 meters from boundary line to center of tree
2. Small trees or shrubs50 centimeters from boundary line to
center of tree or shrub
REMEDY FOR VIOLATION
Demand uprooting of the tree or shrub
Art. 680. If the branches of any tree should extend over a
neighboring estate, tenement, garden or yard, the owner of the
latter shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar as
they may spread over his property, and, if it be the roots of a
neighboring tree which should penetrate into the land of another,
the latter may cut them off himself within his property. (592)
RULES REGARDING INTRUSIONS OR EXTENSIONS OF BRANCHES
AND ROOTS
1. Branchesadjacent owner has the right to demand that they be
cut off
2. Rootshe may cut them off himself
PRESCRIPTION
1. Of the right to demand the cutting off the branchesthis doesnt
prescribe if tolerated by invaded owner
2. Of the right to cut off the rootsthis is imprescriptible unless a
notarial prohibition is made
RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE TREE
The owner of the tree even if the branches and roots have invaded
the adjacent land can cut down the tree himself for he owns the
trees

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 681. Fruits naturally falling upon adjacent land belong to the
owner of said land. (n)
RULES AS TO FRUITS
1. If the fruits still hang on the tree, they are still owned by the tree
owner
2. It is only after they have naturally fallen that they belong to the
owner of the invaded land
EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement
which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing
nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust,
water, glare and other causes.
REASON FOR PROHIBITING A NUISANCE
A nuisance is that which, among others, annoys or offends the
senses and it should therefore be prohibited
WHO IS THE SERVIENT IN AN EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE?
The proprietor or possessor of the building or piece of land who
commits the nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive odor, is
servient in an easement against nuisance
WHO IS DOMINANT IN AN EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE?
The general public or anyone injured by the nuisance
PERHAPS, NOT A TRUE EASEMENT
While a true easement prohibits the owner from that which he
could lawfully do were it not for the existence of the easement, a
nuisance is something that is done or allowed unlawfully, whether
or not a person has made a notarial prohibition
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and
regulations, factories and shops may be maintained provided the
least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood.
LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT
Sec. 684. No proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land
as to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or
subjacent support.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 99 of 123
THE EASEMENT OF LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT ISNT A
TRUE EASEMENT: EXAMPLES
1. Of lateral supportwhile a person may excavate on his own land,
he cannot do so if by such action, adjacent buildings would
collapse or adjacent lands crumble
2. Of subjacent supportA owns a parcel of land with a house, but
underneath the soil is being used by B in connection with a tunnel
LATERAL DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBJACENT
The support is lateral when both the land being supported and the
supporting land are on the same plane, when the supported is
above the supporting land, the support is subjacent
Art. 685. Any stipulation or testamentary provision allowing
excavations that cause danger to an adjacent land or building shall
be void.
RULE ON DANGEROUS EXCAVATIONS
A person is protected even against his own folly, in the interest of
public safety
Art. 686. The legal easement of lateral and subjacent support is not
only for buildings standing at the time the excavations are made
but also for constructions that may be erected.
Art. 687. Any proprietor intending to make any excavation
contemplated in the three preceding articles shall notify all owners
of adjacent lands.
NOTIFICATION RE INTENDED EXCAVATIONS
1. Notice isnt required if there is actual knowledge of the
excavation. Otherwise, notice is mandatory.
2. Even if there be notice, the excavation should deprive the other
owners of lateral or subjacent support. This is true even if the
others consent or even if the excavation is carried out skillfully.
3. Notice is required to enable adjoining owners to take proper
precautions.
VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS
Art. 688. Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish
thereon the easements which he may deem suitable, and in the
manner and form which he may deem best, provided he does not
contravene the laws, public policy or public order. (594)

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
KINDS OF VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE ESTABLISHED
The easements established may be real or personal
RIGHT PERTAINS TO OWNER
Only the owner or someone else, in the name of and with the
authority of the owner, may establish a voluntary real easement
on his estate, for this is an act of ownership
WHO ACTS FOR THE DOMINANT ESTATE?
The person to act for the dominant estate must be the owner or
somebody else, in the name and with the authority of the owner
OWNER WITH A RESOLUTORY OR ANNULABLE TITLE
If a person is an owner with a resolutory title or an annullable
title, he can create an easement over the property but is deemed
extinguished upon resolution or annulment of the title
Art. 689. The owner of a tenement or piece of land, the usufruct of
which belongs to another, may impose thereon, without the
consent of the usufructuary, any servitudes which will not injure
the right of usufruct. (595)
RIGHT OF NAKED OWNER TO IMPOSE EASEMENTS
The naked owner must respect the rights of the usufructuary
Art. 690. Whenever the naked ownership of a tenement or piece of
land belongs to one person and the beneficial ownership to
another, no perpetual voluntary easement may be established
thereon without the consent of both owners. (596)
RULES WHEN USUFRUCT EXISTS
1. The beneficial owner may be himself create a temporary easement
compatible with the extent of his beneficial dominion
2. If the easement is perpetual both the naked and beneficial owners
must consent
Art. 691. In order to impose an easement on an undivided
tenement, or piece of land, the consent of all the co-owners shall
be required.
The consent given by some only, must be held in abeyance until the
last one of all the co-owners shall have expressed his conformity.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 100 of 123
But the consent given by one of the co-owners separately from the
others shall bind the grantor and his successors not to prevent the
exercise of the right granted. (597a)
CREATION OF AN EASEMENT BY THE CO-OWNERS IN A CO-
OWNERSHIP
Unanimous consent is needed for creation of an easement is an
act of ownership
Once a consent has been given, it cannot be revoked
Art. 692. The title and, in a proper case, the possession of an
easement acquired by prescription shall determine the rights of the
dominant estate and the obligations of the servient estate. In
default thereof, the easement shall be governed by such provisions
of this Title as are applicable thereto. (598)
GOVERNING RULES FOR VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS
1. If created by title, the title governs. The CC is suppletory.
2. If created by prescription, the form and manner it is acquired
governs. The CC is suppletory.
3. If created by prescription in a proper case, the way the easement
has been possessed, that is, the manner and form of possession.
Art. 693. If the owner of the servient estate should have bound
himself, upon the establishment of the easement, to bear the cost
of the work required for the use and preservation thereof, he may
free himself from this obligation by renouncing his property to the
owner of the dominant estate. (599)
RULE TO APPLY WHEN SERVIENT ESTATE HAS BOUND ITSELF TO
PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EASEMENT
In the contract or title, the servient owner may have or may not
have bound himself to pay for the maintenance of the easement
Article only applies when he has bound himself
CASE DIGESTS: OTHER LEGAL EASEMENTS; VOLUNTARY
EASEMENTS
158 CORTES V. YU-TIBO
2 PHIL 24
FACTS:
Cortes sought to enforce easement of light and view against Yu-tibo,
claiming to have opened the windows in their house for around 59 years.
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 101 of 123

Araneta, claiming that the condition was inserted by virtue of an

HELD: agreement between it and Trias predecessor-in-interest.
An easement of light and view is a negative easement. A notarial
prohibition is needed to commence prescriptive period. HELD:
It is proper for the opposition because if the condition is erased, a
An easement of light and view is only positive in relation to party walls and purchaser who gets the certificate of title without the annotation will get
apparent signs of easement. hold of the lot free from the encumbrance and might build a factory there.

159 PURUGGANAN V. PAREDES The existence of a zoning ordinance is of no relevance. The ordinance may
69 SCRA 69 be repealed at any time and if so repealed, the prohibition wouldnt be
enforceable.
FACTS:
Paredes had his property at the north of Purugganans. He constructed a 162 LA VISTA ASSOCIATION V. CA
roof which is 2.5 meters wider than what is allowed him, which caused the 278 SCRA 498
rainwater to fall 3 meters wider that what has been established in the
degree of registration. FACTS:
This is the case pertaining to the battle of big boys over the usage of
HELD: Mangyan Road.
In a drainage or easement of receiving water falling from roofs, this
encumbrance relates to water falling from roof of dominant estate on HELD:
servient estate. A legal easement is that which is constituted by law for public use and
interest. A voluntary easement is constituted simply by will or agreement
160 VALISNO V. ADRIANO of the parties.
161 SCRA 398
NUISANCE
FACTS:
Adriano siblings previously owned two parcels of land. On the land of Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
Honorata was an existing irrigation which passes through the land of condition of property, or anything else which:
Felipe, whose property adjoins the river. When Valisno bought the
property, he cultivated therein different fruits and crops. Felipe then (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
enclosed the irrigation providing water to the land of Valisno, causing the
latter prejudice. (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

HELD: (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

Water rights appurtenant to a parcel of land pass with the conveyance of
the land, although not specifically mentioned in the conveyance. (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or
161 TRIAS V. ARANETA
15 SCRA 241 (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

FACTS: Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance

Trias sought the cancellation on her certificate of title an annotation affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number
prohibiting the construction of factories on her land. This was opposed by of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one
that is not included in the foregoing definition.
NUISANCE PER SE
Always a nuisance
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS
A nuisance only because of the location or other circumstances
PUBLIC NUISANCE
Affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number
of persons
PRIVATE NUISANCE
That which is not public
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE
An attractive nuisance is a dangerous instrumentality or appliance
which is likely to attract children at play
Doctrine: One who maintains on his estate or premises an
attractive nuisance without exercising due care to prevent children
from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby even if the child is technically
a trespasser in the premises
Basis of liability: the attractiveness is an invitation to children
A swimming pool or water tank isnt an attractive nuisance for
while it is attractive, it cannot be a nuisance being merely an
imitation of a work of nature. Hence, if small children are
drowned in an attractive water tank of another, the owner is not
liable even if there be no guards in the premises.
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails
or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former
owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the
one who created it.
WHEN SUCCESSOR TO THE PROPERTY MAY BE HELD LIABLE
The successor to be held liable must knowingly fail or refuse to
abate the nuisance
RULE IF LESSOR CREATED OR CONTINUES THE NUISANCE
He cannot escape liability
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 102 of 123
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right
of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether
public or private.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance:
or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of
the remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of
a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or
municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not
abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy
against a public nuisance.
Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public
nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is
specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without
committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But
it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of
the property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health
officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 103 of 123

(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three It is ministerial to comply with the decision of the court to issue a
thousand pesos. title and register a property in the name of a certain person,
especially when the decision had attained finality
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or
(1) A civil action; or annotation, as well as the form, effects, and cancellation of
inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping the books in
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said books,
the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by other special laws shall govern. (608a)
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP
or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the
PRELIMINARY PROVISION
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a
private person be followed.
Art. 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual
creation.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating
a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and
transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intestate
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription. (609a)
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be
not a real nuisance.
MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIPOLD TIPS
1. Occupation
REGISTRY OF PROPERTY 2. Law
3. Donation
Art. 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription 4. Tradition
or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and 5. Intellectual creation
other rights over immovable property. (605) 6. Prescription
7. Succession
Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable
property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry
MODEthe process of acquiring or transferring ownership
of Property shall not prejudice third persons. (606)
TITLEthat which isnt ordinarily sufficient to convey ownership, but which
Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for
gives a juridical justification for the mode
those who have a known interest in ascertaining the status of the
MODE TITLE
immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed therein. (607)
Proximate cause Remote cause
PUBLIC NATURE OF BOOKS
It may embrace every person as long as it is clear that the The true cause The justification for the process
purpose of the examination isnt unlawful or arises from sheer and
idle curiousity Directly produces a real right Serves merely to give an
opportunity for the existence of the
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS real right; meantime, only a

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 104 of 123

personal right exists. 2. Hidden treasure

3. Abandoned movables
CLASSIFICATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN THE CIVIL CODE
WHEN THING IS CONSIDERED ABANDONED
1. When there is full control and enjoyment
1. The expectation to recover is gonespec recuperandi
a. Ownership
2. The intention to return or have it returned has been given up by
b. Possession
the owneranimo revertendi
2. When there is partial control and enjoyment
a. Naked ownership
Art. 714. The ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by
b. Usufruct
occupation. (n)
c. Easements
d. Lease of real property if it exceeds one year or if it is
REASON FOR THE RULE
registered
When the land is without owner, it pertains to the State
3. Real rights of security or guaranty
a. Mortgage
Art. 715. The right to hunt and to fish is regulated by special laws.
b. Pledge
(611)
c. Antichresis
d. Retention
Art. 716. The owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to pursue
e. Chattel mortgage
them to another's land, indemnifying the possessor of the latter for
4. Of acquisition
the damage. If the owner has not pursued the swarm, or ceases to
a. Pre-emption
do so within two consecutive days, the possessor of the land may
b. redemption
occupy or retain the same. The owner of domesticated animals may
also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their
OCCUPATION occupation by another person. This period having expired, they
shall pertain to him who has caught and kept them. (612a)
Art. 713. Things appropriable by nature which are without an
owner, such as animals that are the object of hunting and fishing, KINDS OF ANIMALS
hidden treasure and abandoned movables, are acquired by 1. Wild
occupation. (610) 2. Domestic
3. Domesticated
OCCUPATION DEFINED
Acquisition of ownership by seizing corporeal things that have no ACQUISITION OF DOMESTICATED AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
owner, made with the intention of acquiring them according to 1. Domesticated animals may be acquired by occupation unless a
legal rules claim has been made on them20 days
2. Domestic animals cannot be acquired by occupation unless there
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR OCCUPATION is an abandonment
1. There must be seizure or apprehension
2. The property seized must be corporeal personal property Art. 717. Pigeons and fish which from their respective breeding
3. The property seized must be susceptible of appropriation places pass to another pertaining to a different owner shall belong
4. There must be intent to appropriate to the latter, provided they have not been enticed by some article
5. The requisites or conditions of the law must be complied with of fraud. (613a)

SOME KINDS OF PROPERTY ACQUIRABLE BY OCCUPATION

1. Those without an owner

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 718. He who by chance discovers hidden treasure in another's
property shall have the right granted him in article 438 of this
Code. (614)
Art. 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must
return it 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. (615a)
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. (616a)
CASE DIGESTS: NUISANCE, REGISTRY OF PROPERTY, MODES OF
ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP, INTELLECTUAL CREATION
163 SITCHON V. AQUINO
98 PHIL 720
FACTS:
Petitioners constructed houses on a public road. They were made to pay
concession fees and were issued receipts for the same. Thereafter, they
were being ordered by the city engineer to vacate. Failure to obey, there
was an order for demolition.
HELD:
Houses constructed without governmental authority, on public streets and
roads, obstruct at all times the free use of the public of said places and
accordingly, constitute nuisance per se aside from being public nuisances.
164 VELASCO V. MANILA ELECTRIC
40 SCRA 342
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 105 of 123
FACTS:
Velasco was the owner of 3 adjoining lots. He then sold two of these to
Meralco who later constructed a substation. It was only separated from
the house of petitioner by a wire fence.
HELD:
General rule is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary
inconveniences that result from the proximity of others, and so long as this
level is not surpassed, he may not complain against them. But if the
prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings,
the neighbor who causes such disturbance is held responsible for the
resulting damage, being guilty of causing nuisance.
The test is whether the rights of property, of health or of comfort are so
injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected
to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the
condition of living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact
devoted to uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary care
is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds.
165 ILOILO COLD STORAGE V. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
24 PHIL 471
FACTS:
An ice factory was constructed in the premises. Not long after, there had
been numerous complaints regarding the health hazards that the factory
brings to the areas residents. There was then an order for the factory to
raise its smokestacks, otherwise, it will be ordered to close down.
HELD:
If no compelling necessity requires the summary abatement of a nuisance,
the municipal authorities under their power to declare and abate nuisances,
dont have the right to compel the abatement of a particular thing or act as
a nuisance without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be
maintaining or doing the same of the time and place of hearing before a
tribunal authority to decide whether the thing is a nuisance or not.
166 HIDALGO ENTERPRISES V. BALANDAN
91 PHIL 488
FACTS:
Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant factory. They kept on
their premises 2 uncovered water tanks, which were unguarded. On a
relevant date, children entered the factory premises and swam in one of

the water tanks. One of them drowned and sank in the tank. The factory
is now being held for damages.
HELD:
A swimming pool or water tank isnt an attractive nuisance for while it is
attractive, it cannot be a nuisance being merely an imitation of a work of
nature. Hence, if small children are drowned in an attractive water tank of
another, the owner is not liable even if there be no guards in the premises.
167 SUBIDO V. OZAETA
80 PHIL 383
FACTS:
Petitioner was the editor of the Manila Post, who sought the inspection of
real estates sold to aliens and registered with the RD. He was denied to do
so which prompted him to file a petition for mandamus.
HELD:
Except when it is clear that the purpose of the inspection is unlawful, it is
not the duty of the registration officers to concern themselves with the
motives, purposes, and objects of the person seeking to inspect the
records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information which the
records contain is not flaunted before the public gaze.
168 FRUIT OF THE LOOM V. CA
133 SCRA 405
FACTS:
1. Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Rhode Island, USA. It is the registrant of the trademark FRUIT
OF THE LOOM in the Philippine Patent Office and was issued two
Certificates of Registration, one of which was in 1957 and the other in
1958.
2. Private Respondent, a domestic corporation, is the registrant of the
trademark FRUIT FOR EVE in the Philippine Patent Office.
3. Both are involved in the merchandise of garments.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair
competition against private respondent, alleging that:
a. The latters trademark is confusingly similar to the formers,
both trademarks being used in womens panties and other textile
products.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 106 of 123
b. That the hang tags used by private respondent is a colorable
imitation of those of the petitioner.
5. Private respondent alleged that there was no confusing similarity
between the trademarks.
6. At the pre-trial, the following admissions were made:
a. That the registered trademark Fruit for Eve bears the notice
Reg. Phil. Pat. Off. while that of Fruit of the Loom does not.
b. That at the time of its registration, the plaintiff filed no
opposition thereto.
7. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner,
permanently enjoining private respondent from using the trademark Fruit
for Eve.
8. Both parties appealed to the former Court of Appeals:
a. Petitioner questioned the lower courts failure to award
damages in its favor.
b. Private respondent sought the reversal of the lower courts
decision.
9. The former Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the lower
courts decision and dismissing the petitioners complaint. The petitioners
motion for reconsideration was denied.
HELD:
In cases involving infringement of trademark brought before this Court, it
has been consistently held that there is infringement of trademark when
the use of the mark involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake
in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers as to the origin or source
of the commodity. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only
on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both
labels in order that he may draw his conclusion where one is confusingly
similar to the other. The similarities of the competing trademarks in this
case are completely lost in the substantial differences in the design and
general appearance of their respective hang tags. We have examined the
two trademarks as they appear in the hang tags submitted by the parties
and We are impressed more by the dissimilarities than by the similarities
appearing therein. We hold that the trademarks Fruit of the Loom and Fruit
for Eve do not resemble each other as to confuse or deceive an ordinary
purchaser. The ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having, and
credited with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the
obvious differences between the two trademarks in question.

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
169 DEL MONTE CORPORATION V. CA
181 SCRA 410
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a case for trademark infringement and unfair competition
against Sunshine Sauce. The latter for a time used the bottles of Del
Monte in packaging their own catsup sauce. It also used bottles which
were similar to those of petitioner.
HELD:
There is a distinction between infringment of trademark and unfair
competition:
1. Infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark while unfair
competition is the passing off of ones goods as that of another
2. In infringement, fraudulent intent is unnecessary while it is
otherwise for unfair competition
3. In infringement, prior registration of the trademark is needed
whereas in unfair competition, registration is not necessary.
In assessing the two trademarks, side-by-side comparison is not the final
test of similarity because average buyers dont make minute scrutiny of
label details.
Also, in testing if there has been prior registration, registration in the
supplemental register isnt what the law contemplates.
170 PHILIPS EXPERT V. CA
206 SCRA 457
FACTS:
Petitioner filed an action against private respondent for the use of the latter
of a corporate name confusingly similar with petitioners.
HELD:
Under the corporation code, no corporate name may be allowed by the SEC
if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to
that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by
law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. The
policy behind this provision is to avoid fraud upon the public, which would
have the occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal
obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration
and supervision over corporations.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 107 of 123
The corporate names of private respondents are identical or deceptively or
confusingly similar to that of petitioners.
171 LYCEUM OF THE PHILS. V. CA
219 SCRA 610
FACTS:
1. Petitioner had sometime commenced before in the SEC a
complaint against Lyceum of Baguio, to require it to change its
corporate name and to adopt another name not similar or identical
with that of petitioner. SEC decided in favor of petitioner.
Lyceum of Baguio filed petition for certiorari but was denied for
lack of merit.
2. Armed with the resolution of the Court, petitioner instituted before
the SEC to compel private respondents, which are also educational
institutions, to delete word Lyceum from their corporate names
and permanently to enjoin them from using such as part of their
respective names.
3. Hearing officer sustained the claim of petitioner and held that the
word Lyceum was capable of appropriation and that petitioner
had acquired an enforceable right to the use of that word.
4. In an appeal, the decision was reversed by the SEC En Banc.
They held that the word Lyceum to have become identified with
petitioner as to render use thereof of other institutions as
productive of consfusion about the identity of the schools
concerned in the mind of the general public.
5. Petitioner went to appeal with the CA but the latter just affirmed
the decision of the SEC En Banc.
HELD:
Under the corporation code, no corporate name may be allowed by the SEC
if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to
that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by
law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. The
policy behind this provision is to avoid fraud upon the public, which would
have the occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal
obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration
and supervision over corporations.
The corporate names of private respondents are not identical or
deceptively or confusingly similar to that of petitioners. Confusion and
deception has been precluded by the appending of geographic names to
the word Lyceum. Furthermore, the word Lyceum has become
associated in time with schools and other institutions providing public

lectures, concerts, and public discussions. Thus, it generally refers to a
school or an institution of learning.
Petitioner claims that the word has acquired a secondary meaning in
relation to petitioner with the result that the word, although originally
generic, has become appropriable by petitioner to the exclusion of other
institutions.
The doctrine of secondary meaning is a principle used in trademark law but
has been extended to corporate names since the right to use a corporate
name to the exclusion of others is based upon the same principle, which
underlies the right to use a particular trademark or tradename. Under this
doctrine, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation
with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or
otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used for so long and
so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that
trade and to that group of purchasing public, the word or phrase has come
to mean that the article was his produce. The doctrine cannot be made to
apply where the evidence didn't prove that the business has continued for
so long a time that it has become of consequence and acquired good will of
considerable value such that its articles and produce have acquired a well-
known reputation, and confusion will result by the use of the disputed
name.
Petitioner didn't present evidence, which provided that the word Lyceum
acquired secondary meaning. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence that
it had exclusive use of the word. Even if petitioner used the word for a
long period of time, it hadnt acquired any secondary meaning in its favor
because the appellant failed to prove that it had been using the same word
all by itself to the exclusion of others.
172 ASIA BREWERY V. COURT OF APPEALS
224 SCRA 437
FACTS:
SMC filed a case against petitioner for infringement of trademark. It
alleged that the bottles used by Asia Brewery were confusingly similar to
those used by SMC in the packaging of its beer. The trial court held in
favor of Asia Brewery but was reversed in the appellate court.
HELD:
Using the holistic test, wherein all circumstances were given consideration,
there was no infringement committed by petitioner.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 108 of 123
There are two tests available for colorable imitation. One is the dominancy
test. If the form, marks, contents, words of other special arrangement or
general appearance of the two marks or devices are such as would likely
mislead persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article,
then the similarity is such as would entitle the opposer to equitable
protection.
Under the holistic test, on the other hand, the opposing trademarks are
compared in their entirety to determine confusing similarity.
173 PEARL AND DEAN V. SMI
409 SCRA 231
FACTS:
Pearl and Dean had their light box designs copyrighted but does this
extend to the actual light boxes?
In this case, Pearl and Dean supplied the light boxes to different branches
of SM. Thereafter, it was found out that a different supplier took over,
using the same design of the light boxes. This prompted the petitioner to
file an action against SMI.
HELD:
Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute
confers. It can cover only the works falling under the statutory
enumeration or description. A copyright would only cover the drawing or
technical description but will not extend to the actual product. The actual
product should be covered by a patent to be protected.
A patent infringement to be sustained necessarily entails that a patent is
secured and has been issued. No right to the invention arises alone from
the issuance of a patent.
DONATION
NATURE OF DONATIONS
Art. 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes
gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.
(618a)
DONATION AS AN ACT AND AS A CONTRACT
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 109 of 123

Although the article says it is an act, it cannot be denied that a INTER VIVOS MORTIS CAUSA
donation is really a contract Takes effect during lifetime of donor Takes effect after the death of the
It itself is a mode of acquiring ownership and doesnt ordinarily donor
require delivery before ownership may be transferred
Must follow the formalities of Must follow the formalities of wills
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE DONATION INTER VIVOS donations and codicils
1. The necessary form
2. Consent or acceptance by donee during donors lifetime Cannot be revoked except for Can be revoked anytime and for any
3. Irrevocability grounds provided for by law reason while the donor is still alive
4. Intent to benefit the donee
5. Resultant decrease in the assets or patrimony of donor In case of impairment of the In case the legitime is impaired,
legitime, donations inter vivos are donations mortis causa are reduced
Art. 726. When a person gives to another a thing or right on preferred to donations mortis causa ahead of donations inter vivos, the
account of the latter's merits or of the services rendered by him to latter being preferred
the donor, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, or
when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less than The right of disposition is The right of disposition isnt
the value of the thing given, there is also a donation. (619) completely transferred to the donee transferred to the donee while the
donor is still alive
CLASSIFICATION OF DONATIONS
1. From viewpoint of motive, purpose or cause Acceptance by donee must be Acceptance by donee mortis causa
a. Simplethe cause is pure liberality during lifetime of donor can be only be done upon donors
b. Renumeratorydue to past services rendered or future death
services or charges and burdens
c. Onerousburdens and charges equal to the value of the
DONATION IN PRAESENTI TO BE DELIVERED IN FUTURO
thing donated
Considered as a donation inter vivos and all the characteristics
d. Modalconsideration is less than the value of the thing
referred to above are applicable to it in relation to a donation inter
donated
vivos
2. Time of taking effect
a. Inter vivos
Art. 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take
b. Mortis causa
effect during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall
not be delivered till after the donor's death, this shall be a donation
Art. 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and
inter vivos. The fruits of the property from the time of the
remuneratory donations shall be considered as not imposed. (n)
acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the
donor provides otherwise. (n)
Art. 728. Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the
donor partake of the nature of testamentary provisions, and shall
Art. 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive
be governed by the rules established in the Title on Succession.
condition, which may take place beyond the natural expectation of
(620)
life of the donor, does not destroy the nature of the act as a
donation inter vivos, unless a contrary intention appears. (n)
DONATIONS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF EFFECTIVITY
SUSPENSIVE CONDITION WHICH MAY BE FULFILLED BEYOND THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DONATION INTER VIVOS AND MORTIS
LIFETIME OF THE DONOR
CAUSA

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

Reason for the lawretroactive effect of the fulfillment of the
suspensive condition
Art. 731. When a person donates something, subject to the
resolutory condition of the donor's survival, there is a donation
inter vivos. (n)
DONATION SUBJECT TO THE RESOLUTORY CONDITION OF THE
DONORS SURVIVAL
Art. 732. Donations which are to take effect inter vivos shall be
governed by the general provisions on contracts and obligations in
all that is not determined in this Title. (621)
SUPPLETORY EFFECT OF RULES ON CONTRACTS
Art. 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the
rules on contracts and remuneratory donations by the provisions of
the present Title as regards that portion which exceeds the value of
the burden imposed. (622)
Art. 734. The donation is perfected from the moment the donor
knows of the acceptance by the donee. (623)
PERFECTION OF THE DONATION
Donation is perfected not from the time of acceptance but from
the time of knowledge of the donor that the donee has accepted
PERSONS WHO MAY GIVE OR RECEIVE A DONATION
Art. 735. All persons who may contract and dispose of their
property may make a donation. (624)
WHO MAY DONATE; SIMULTANEOUS CAPACITIES
It is not enough that a person be capacitated to contract, he must
also have the capacity to dispose
Art. 736. Guardians and trustees cannot donate the property
entrusted to them. (n)
REASON FOR THE RULE: they can only do acts of administration and not
of ownership.
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 110 of 123
Art. 737. The donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of
the making of the donation. (n)
DETERMINATION OF CAPACITY
Capacity of both donor and donee is determined at the time of
perfection of the donation
Art. 738. All those who are not specially disqualified by law
therefor may accept donations. (625)
WHEN IS A PERSON CONSIDERED SPECIALLY DISQUALIFIED BY
LAW
Specially disqualified doesnt refer to those incapacitated to
contract like minors and those of unsound mind but to people
such as those mentioned in article 739, etc.
Art. 739. The following donations shall be void:
(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or
concubinage at the time of the donation;
(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal
offense, in consideration thereof;
(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descedants and
ascendants, by reason of his office.
In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity
may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt
of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of
evidence in the same action. (n)
DONATIONS THAT ARE VOID BECAUSE OF MORAL
CONSIDERATIONS
1. The first kindthose made between persons who were guilty of
adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation
a. The adultery or concubinage need not be proved in a
criminal action. The guilt may be proved by
preponderance of evidence.
b. If the donation was made after the adultery or
concubinage, then it is valid except if the consideration
thereof is the commission of the act
c. If the perpetrators are merely sweethearts but dont have
any sexual intercourse with one another, then this
prohibition is not applicable. Remember the elements of
adultery and concubinage.
2. The second kindthose made between persons found guilty of the
same criminal offense, in consideration thereof

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
a. There must be a criminal convictionmere
preponderance of evidence showing guilt is not sufficient
b. It doesnt matter whether the donation was made before
or after the commission of the offense
3. The third kindthose made to a public officer or his wife,
descendants and ascendants by reason of his office
a. Purposeto prevent bribery
REASON WHY THE DONATION ARE VOID
Void by reason of public policy
Art. 740. Incapacity to succeed by will shall be applicable to
donations inter vivos. (n)
Art. 1027. The following are incapable of succeeding:
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his
last illness, or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid
to him during the same period;
(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the
fourth degree, the church, order, chapter, community, organization,
or institution to which such priest or minister may belong;
(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a
ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have
been approved, even if the testator should die after the approval
thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in favor of
the guardian when the latter is his ascendant, descendant, brother,
sister, or spouse, shall be valid;
(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse,
parents, or children, or any one claiming under such witness,
spouse, parents, or children;
(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who
took care of the testator during his last illness;
(6) Individuals, associations and corporations not permitted by law
to inherit. (745, 752, 753, 754a)
Art. 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of
unworthiness:
(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their
daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against
their virtue;
(2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the
life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 111 of 123
(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which
the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the
accusation has been found groundless;
(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent death
of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of the law within
a month, unless the authorities have already taken action; this
prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according to law,
there is no obligation to make an accusation;
(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the
spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one
already made;
(7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from
making a will, or from revoking one already made, or who
supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
(8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the
decedent. (756, 673, 674a)
Art. 741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may
become donees but acceptance shall be done through their parents
or legal representatives. (626a)
MINORS MAY BE DONEES
MAY MINORS ACCEPT BY THEMSELVES?
It depends.
1. If the donation is simpleyes because after all is for the benefit of
the child. The exception is when a written acceptance is required.
In this case, the parents or legal representative must intervene.
2. If the donation is onerous or conditionalbecause there is some
burden is imposed on the child. The parent and the legal
representative must intervene.
Art. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be
accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if
they were already born. (627)
REQUISITES FOR THE ARTICLE TO APPLY
1. The child be born alive later
2. Or that the child after being born alive, should live for at least 24
hours

Art. 743. Donations made to incapacitated persons shall be void,
though simulated under the guise of another contract or through a
person who is interposed. (628)
DISGUISED DONATIONS TO INCAPACITATED PERSONSMEANING
OF INCAPACITATED
Refers to those who are not allowed to become donees
Art. 744. Donations of the same thing to two or more different
donees shall be governed by the provisions concerning the sale of
the same thing to two or more different persons. (n)
DONATION OF THE SAME OBJECT TO TWO OR MORE DIFFERENNT
DONEES; CROSS-REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1544
Ampil: technically there can be no double donationremember
that donation is a mode and sale is only a title
Art. 745. The donee must accept the donation personally, or
through an authorized person with a special power for the purpose,
or with a general and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation
shall be void. (630)
FORMALITIES FOR ACCEPTANCE
The formalities for acceptance if any must also be present,
otherwise the donation is void
THRU WHOM ACCEPTANCE MAY BE MADE
This article speaks of two kinds of authorized personsone with
special power and another, one with a general and sufficient
power
Art. 746. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor
and of the donee. (n)
APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE ON WHEN ACCEPTANCE IS TO BE
MADE
The rule enunciated herein is applicable to donations inter vivos as
well as donations which are onerous
In the case of onerous donations, without unconditional
acceptance, there will be no meeting of minds and thus, no
perfection of contract
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 112 of 123
Art. 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others
who may not do so by themselves, shall be obliged to make the
notification and notation of which Article 749 speaks. (631)
ADDITIONAL DUTY OF THOSE WHO ACCEPT FOR OTHERS
1. It is understood that the persons referred to here are duly
authorized to do the acceptance
2. Notification and notation in the proper cases, are essential for the
perfection of the donation
Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made orally or in
writing.
An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or
of the document representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five
thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in
writing, otherwise, the donation shall be void. (632a)
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid,
it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the
property donated and the value of the charges which the donee
must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a
separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is
done during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall
be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be
noted in both instruments. (633)
*CONSTANCIA AUTHENTICA
CASE DIGESTS: DONATIONS; PERSONS WHO CAN GIVE AND
RECEIVE DONATIONS
174 ALDABA V. CA
27 SCRA 263
FACTS:
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 113 of 123

Belen was a prominent and rich woman. When she died, she left as heirs
her husband and daughter. Before her death, she allowed Dr. Aldaba and
his daughter to live in one of her houses. Now that she is dead, the
surviving heirs wanted the doctor and his daughter out of the house. They
refused to do so, claiming a valid donation in their favor, evidenced
supposedly of a letter by Belen allowing them to stay further in the house.
HELD:
Intent to donate is not enough to effect a valid donation.
175 JUTIC V. CA
153 SCRA 269
FACTS:
Arsenio was the owner of two agricultural lands. During his lifetime, he
executed an affidavit in favor of Melquiades, his brother, for one of the
lots. The affidavit expressed his intention to bequeath to the latter the
land. Despite this, Arsenio mortgaged the property, applied for a
homestead patentall in his right as an owner.
The donation notwithstanding, if there is reservation of the right of
disposition, the donation is mortis causa and not inter vivos.
178 SICAD V. CA
294 SCRA 183
FACTS:
Aurora executed a deed entitled donation inter vivos in favor of her
grandchildren. There was reservation of right of disposition in her favor
and the property may not be disposed of after 10 years from her death.
Thereafter, the title were registered in the donees name yet the owners
duplicate is with Aurora. Thereafter, the grandchildren sold the land to
Sicad and Aurora sought to reinstate TCT in her name.
HELD:
If there is reservation of disposition with donor, then the donation is of
mortis causa and not inter vivos.
A document is what the law defines it to be and not what the parties call it.

HELD: 179 DAVID V. SISON

Again, like the previous case, an intent to donate is not enough to effect a 76 PHIL 118
valid donation. There are formalities that needs to be complied with.
FACTS:
176 HOWARD V. PADILLA Petitioners claim 5% of original inventoried estate. In this claim, there is
96 PHIL 983 contention with respect on whether donation was inter vivos or mortis
causa. The deed of donation was effected by David after adopting
FACTS: grandnieces.
Two petitions for review of a decision which declares that the donation in
question is by nature inter vivos, and not mortis causa, and as such is valid HELD:
and irrevocable. The donation is of mortis causa because the conditions set in are of the
nature that will not take effect till the death of the donor.
HELD:
The donation is of mortis causa and since it is not in conformity with the 180 MAGLASANG V. HEIRS OF CABATINGAN
formalities of a will, is null and void. 383 SCRA 6

177 PUIG V. PENAFLORIDA FACTS:

16 SCRA 136 Conchita issued deeds of donation in favor of petitioners conveying parcels
of land, houses, and other properties. After her death, respondents sought
FACTS: the annulment of the deeds, claiming to be not in conformity with
Penaflorida contends that the donation effected was a donation inter vivos formalities of a will, being donations mortis causa.
even if the disposition of the property was reserved with Parcon.
HELD:
HELD:

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 114 of 123

If a donation is of mortis causa, it should conform with formalities of a will The donation in favor of Ursula is of inter vivos and thus, it is valid and
for it to be valid. Otherwise, it shall be void. should be upheld. Given such, as there was no reason to revoke the
donation in her favor, the later donation to a minor is null and void.
181 BONSATO V. CA
95 PHIL 481 184 GESTOPA V. CA
342 SCRA 105
FACTS:
Respondents sought the annulment of the deeds of donation on the ground FACTS:
that it wasnt in compliance with the formalities of a will. The petitioners Spouses Gestopa previously issued a deed of donation mortis cause in
on the other hand claim that they are valid donations and that they were favor of Mercedes but subsequently, they issued another deed, now inter
not donations mortis causa. vivos, still in favor of Mercedes. Mercedes now seeks the donated property
but the Gestopas claimed that she isnt entitled to such, the donation being
HELD: mortis causa.
If there has been no badge that it is a donation mortis causa, it should be
considered as a donation inter vivos. HELD:
The existence of an acceptance clause in the deed shows that the donation
182 ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ is of inter vivos. There is no acceptance needed when it comes to
78 SCRA 245 donations mortis causa.

FACTS: 185 QUIJADA V. CA

Spouses Diaz executed deeds of donation in favor of Andrea and Angel. 299 SCRA 645
After the spouses died, Andrea sued Angel for the partition of the lots, and
that the donations effected before were invalid for not complying with FACTS:
formalities of a will. A parcel of land was donated for the construction of a school. The donation
is subject to a resolutory condition. The school wasnt constructed. The
HELD: land was subsequently sold to Montejar. The donors sought to remove
The contracts show that the donation was in the nature of inter vivosthe Montejar from the premises.
acceptance clause, warranty clause, and reservation clause all lead to this
conclusion. HELD:
It has been held that when a person donates land to another on the
183 REYES V. MASQUEDA condition that the latter would build upon the land a school, the condition
187 SCRA 661 imposed is a resolutory one and not suspensive.

FACTS: 186 LAGAZO V. CA

Dr. Pascual died without issue and left his properties to his sister and
latters children as heirs. In the inventory of his estate, Ursula sought to
exclude those properties that were donated to her by her brother during
his lifetime. On one of the properties donated to her, she sold the same to
Reyes. It was found out however that after the donation to her was made,
it was donated subsequent to a minor.
HELD:
287 SCRA 18
FACTS:
Catalina was the grantee of the Monserrat estate. She had to leave for
Canada to become a permanent resident therein and she appointed
Espanol to be her attorney-in-fact to fix the requirements needed. Failing
to accomplish what he ought to do, Catalina appointed Lagazo as her new
attorney-in-fact. The grant was subsequently given and later, the land was
donated to Lagazo. Lagazo then sought to remove Cabanlit from the

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 115 of 123

property. The latter claims ownership over the land by virtue of a deed of Gregorio Cagaoan donated four parcels of land first in favor of Eugenio. He
sale executed in favor of him by Espanol. was able to take possession but he wasnt able to register. On a later date,
another donation was effected, this time in favor of Felix. Felix this time
HELD: was able to register.
The donation is simple and pure.
HELD:
There is no showing of any acceptance from Lagazo and thus, there has Felix has a better right over the property donated. This follows the rules
been no perfected donation. on double sales.

187 DANGUILAN V. IAC 190 JLT AGRO V. BALASAG

168 SCRA 22 453 SCRA 211

FACTS:
Apolinia sought the recovery of a farm lot and house from Danguilan. She
averred that she acquired the property through sale. Danguilan on the
other hand, contends that the property is his by virtue of a donation.
HELD:
The donation being of real property, it is void for not complying with the
requirements given by law. Donation of real property should be in a public
instrument. In this case, it wasnt.
188 REPUBLIC V. GUZMAN
325 SCRA 90
FACTS:
David was a natural-born American citizen. His dad is a naturalized
American citizen. When his dad died, properties were left in favor of him
and his mother. Thereafter, a quitclaim was executed by the mother,
conveying to him all of her shares in the property. David claims that the
properties were donated by his mother to him.
HELD:
By the language of the quitclaims, the intention was a waiver of her rights,
title and interest over the lands in favor of David and not a donation. That
a donation was far from the mothers mind. The deeds of quitclaim were in
the nature of public instruments but they didnt effect a donation. They
lack the essential element of acceptance to make the donation valid.
FACTS:
Don Julian had two marriages during his lifetime. During his first one, with
Antonia, he had two children. In the second marriage, he had 4 children
with Milagros. Upon the death of Antonia, the first children sought the
partition of the property. On the disputed Lot 63, there was a compromise
agreement entered into by the parties whereby Lot 63 was supposed to be
exclusively adjudicated in favor of his second wife and children by the
same.
HELD:
The partition inter vivos of Don Julian is valid. Considering however that
such would be effective upon his death only, the right of his heirs from the
second marriage would become legally operative only upon the death of
Don Julianall is just a mere expectancy. Evidently, at the time of
execution of deed of assignment, Julian remained the owner of the
properties.
EFFECT OF DONATIONS AND LIMITATIONS THEREON
Art. 750. The donations may comprehend all the present property
of the donor, or part thereof, provided he reserves, in full
ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for the support of
himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of
the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor.
Without such reservation, the donation shall be reduced in petition
of any person affected. (634a)

188 CAGAOAN V. CAGAOAN REASON FOR THE LAW ON DONATIONS WITHOUT THE NEEDED
43 PHIL 554 RESERVATION
This article is important because the claims of the donors own
FACTS: family shouldnt be disregarded

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
STATUS OF THE DONATION
An excessive donation under this article is not void, but merely
reducable to the extent support of the relatives is unimpaired
The party prejudiced can ask the court for the reduction
SUPPOSE HE MADE THE RESERVATION BUT THIS DOESNT APPEAR
IN THE DEED OF DONATION, IS THE DONATION ALL RIGHT?
Yes, for the law doesnt state that the deed of donation must
expressly say that a reservation has been made
That indeed there was a reservation can be proved by evidence
aliunde
DONATIONS NOT INCLUDED UNDER THIS ARTICLE
The onerous donation
Donation mortis causa
Donations propter nuptias
MEANING OF PRESENT PROPERTY
Present property is that the donor can dispose of at the time of
donation
PAYMENT OF EXISTING CREDITORS
Aside from the reservation as to support, the donor must also
reserve enough of his property to pay off his debts contracted
before the donation, otherwise, there is presumption that the
donation was made to defraud creditors
Art. 751. Donations cannot comprehend future property.
By future property is understood anything which the donor cannot
dispose of at the time of the donation. (635)
FUTURE PROPERTY
Anything which the donor cannot dispose of at the time of the
donation
Future inheritance cannot be the object of the donation, but
present or accrued inheritance may be even if the properties have
not yet been delivered, for in succession, the rights of inheritance
are transmitted from the very moment of death
REASON FOR THE ARTICLE WHICH GENERALLY PROHIBITS THE
DONATION OF FUTURE PROPERTY
One cannot give away that which doesnt have nemo dat quod non
habet
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 116 of 123
Art. 752. The provisions of Article 750 notwithstanding, no person
may give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or
receive by will.
The donation shall be inofficious in all that it may exceed this
limitation. (636)
LIMITATION ON THE GIVER
A person may not give by donation more than what he can give by
will
And a person may not receive by way of donation more than what
the giver may give by virtue of a will
TO WHOM LIMITATION APPLIES
The limitation naturally applies to persons only who have
compulsory heirs at the time of the formers death
PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
The action to revoke or reduce the inofficious donations must be
brought by the donors compulsory heirs, within 5 years after the
donors death
Art. 753. When a donation is made to several persons jointly, it is
understood to be in equal shares, and there shall be no right of
accretion among them, unless the donor has otherwise provided.
The preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to donations made
to the husband and wife jointly, between whom there shall be a
right of accretion, if the contrary has not been provided by the
donor. (637)
GENERALLY NO ACCRETION
INSTANCES WHEN ACCRETION IS PROPER
1. In case of predecease
2. In case of incapacity
3. In case of refusal or repudiation
DONATION TO WIFE OF ANOTHER
Note that in case of a donation is made by a friend to the wife of
another, the husband of the latter has to consent, otherwise the
donation is not valid
The exception is when the donor is the ascendant, parent-in-law,
or collateral relative within the 4th degree of the wife

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Art. 754. The donee is subrogated to all the rights and actions
which in case of eviction would pertain to the donor. The latter, on
the other hand, is not obliged to warrant the things donated, save
when the donation is onerous, in which case the donor shall be
liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden.
The donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case
of bad faith on his part. (638a)
SUBROGATION OF DONEE
EVICTION, DEFINED.
Eviction shall take place whenever by final judgment based on a
right prior to the sale or an act imputable to the vendor/donor,
the vendee/donee is deprived the whole or of a part of the thing
purchased/donated
MEANING OF HIDDEN DEFECTS
Those which are not patent upon a physical examination of the
object donated
WHEN WARRANTY EXISTS
1. If the donor is in bad faith
2. If donation is onerous
3. If warranty is expressly made
4. If donation is propter nuptias unless the contrary is stipulated
Art. 755. The right to dispose of some of the things donated, or of
some amount which shall be a charge thereon, may be reserved by
the donor; but if he should die without having made use of this
right, the property or amount reserved shall belong to the donee.
(639)
DONATIONS WITH RESERVATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE
Art. 756. The ownership of property may also be donated to one
person and the usufruct to another or others, provided all the
donees are living at the time of the donation. (640a)
DONATION OF NAKED OWNERSHIP AND USUFRUCT
When one person receives the usufruct, it is understood that the
other donee receives only the naked, and the not the full
ownership
FORM
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 117 of 123
The usufruct of real property, being real property by itself should
be donated in the form prescribed for real properties
The naked ownership and usufruct of personal properties are
personal properties themselves, so only the formalities for the
donation of personal property would be required
Art. 757. Reversion may be validly established in favor of only the
donor for any case and circumstances, but not in favor of other
persons unless they are all living at the time of the donation.
Any reversion stipulated by the donor in favor of a third person in
violation of what is provided in the preceding paragraph shall be
void, but shall not nullify the donation. (614a)
CONVENTIONAL REVERSION
Art. 758. When the donation imposes upon the donee the obligation
to pay the debts of the donor, if the clause does not contain any
declaration to the contrary, the former is understood to be liable to
pay only the debts which appear to have been previously
contracted. In no case shall the donee be responsible for the debts
exceeding the value of the property donated, unless a contrary
intention clearly appears. (642a)
STIPULATION THAT DONEE SHOULD PAY DEBTS OF THE DONOR
1. Pay only for prior debts contracted after the donation had been
made, unless there is stipulation to this effect
2. Pay only for debts up to the value of the property donated
Art. 759. There being no stipulation regarding the payment of
debts, the donee shall be responsible therefor only when the
donation has been made in fraud of creditors.
The donation is always presumed to be in fraud of creditors, when
at the time thereof the donor did not reserve sufficient property to
pay his debts prior to the donation. (643)
RULES WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULATION
General rule is that the donee is not required to pay
Exception is when the donation is made in fraud of creditors
PRESUMPTION
The law establishes a presumption when the donation is
apparently in fraud of creditors, namely failure to reserve
sufficient property to pay previous debts

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
REVOCATION AND REDUCTION OF DONATIONS
Art. 760. Every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no
children or descendants, legitimate or legitimated by subsequent
marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced as provided in
the next article, by the happening of any of these events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or
legitimated or illegitimate children, even though they be
posthumous;
(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead
when he made the donation, should turn out to be living;
(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a minor child. (644a)
TWO KINDS OF INOFFICIOUS DONATIONS
1. Those referred to in Articles 760 and 761
2. Those referred to in Articles 771 and 752
REASON WHY REDUCTION OR REVOCATION IS ALLOWED
The law presumes that had the donor known he would have a
child or that the child he thought was dead was really alive, he
wouldnt have made the donations, because then his only child
would have been the object of his affection and generosity
ADOPTION
1. Adoption must have judicial approval
2. The adoption must be that of a minor child
3. It will be observed that this adoption is practically one way of
allowing the donor to revoke the donation inter vivos at his own
will. To allow an adoption of a sui juris as a ground of revocation
may give rise to adoption fro ulterior purposes
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 760
1. Donations propter nuptias
2. Onerous donations
3. Mortis causa
Art. 761. In the cases referred to in the preceding article, the
donation shall be revoked or reduced insofar as it exceeds the
portion that may be freely disposed of by will, taking into account
the whole estate of the donor at the time of the birth, appearance
or adoption of a child. (n)
VALUE OF THE HEREDITARY ESTATE
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 118 of 123
The value at the birth, appearance, or adoption plus the value of
the donation
RULE WHEN DONATION CAN BE COVERED BY THE FREE DISPOSAL
Insofar as the free disposal is concerned, the donation will remain
valid up to that extent
Art. 762. Upon the revocation or reduction of the donation by the
birth, appearance or adoption of a child, the property affected shall
be returned or its value if the donee has sold the same.
If the property is mortgaged, the donor may redeem the mortgage,
by paying the amount guaranteed, with a right to recover the same
from the donee.
When the property cannot be returned, it shall be estimated at
what it was worth at the time of the donation. (645a)
WHAT THE DONEE MUST DO IF THE DONATION IS REDUCED
1. If the property is still with him, return the property
2. If the property has been sold, give the value to the donor
3. If the property has been mortgaged, the donor may pay off the
debt, but he can recover reimbursement from the donee
4. If the property cannot be returned, return its value
Art. 763. The action for revocation or reduction on the grounds set
forth in article 760 shall prescribe after four years from the birth of
the first child, or from his legitimation, recognition or adoption, or
from the judicial declaration of filiation, or from the time
information was received regarding the existence of the child
believed dead.
This action cannot be renounced, and is transmitted, upon the
death of the donor, to his legitimate and illegitimate children and
descendants. (646a)
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR REVOCATION OR REDUCTION
1. If the donation was made when there was no child, it is the birth
of the first child that counts, and not the birth of subsequent
children.
2. First child refers to the first legitimate child
3. Mere birth of a natural child is not a ground, it is the recognition
that is the ground of reduction
RULE IN CASE OF LEGITIMATED CHILDREN

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Counted from time of legitimation
EFFECT IF REASON DISAPPEARS
The donation should remain valid
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Four years
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the
donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions
which the former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor,
the alienations made by the donee and the mortgages imposed
thereon by him being void, with the limitations established, with
regard to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the Land
Registration Laws.
This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance
with the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor,
and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. (647a)
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS
Conditions must be understood to mean the charges and burdens
imposed
When the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions
imposed by the donor, it is the donor who has the right to impugn
the validity of the transaction affecting the donated property
NECESSITY OF COURT ACTION
The donor may not revoke a donation by his own unilateral act,
even if the donee should have broken any of the conditions
imposed by the donation
A court action is essential, if the donee refuses to return the
property voluntarily
PERIOD FOR FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS
1. If there is a period given, said period is controlling, unless
extended by the donor
2. If there is no period, the courts may fix a reasonable term
EFFECT ON PROPERTY DONATED
1. If still with the donee, he must return the same to the donor
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 119 of 123
2. If sold, donated, or mortgaged, the alienation or encumbrance will
be considered void, unless the grantee be an innocent third party
who has received or registered his own right
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Four years from the non-compliance of the condition
TRANSMISSIBILITY OF THE RIGHT TO REVOKE
The heirs are expressly granted the right to revoke if the donor is
already dead and that the prescriptive period has not yet lapsed
WHEN COURT ACTION IS NOT ESSENTIAL
Court action is essential for revocation, unless the donee willingly
surrenders the property or his value
It is the party prejudiced who should bring the suit
MAY REVOCATION BE DONE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DONORS
HEIRS?
Yes, because one right of a creditor is to exercise the rights that
couldve been exercised by the debtor
ACTION TO REVOKE MAY BE WAIVED
The action to revoke is waivable by the donor or his successors-in-
interest
Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the
donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following cases:
(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person,
the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children
under his parental authority;
(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any
act involving moral turpitude, even though he should prove it,
unless the crime or the act has been committed against the donee
himself, his wife or children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or
morally bound to give support to the donor. (648a)
REASON FOR THE LAW ON GROUNDS OF INGRATITUDE
One who has been the object of generosity must not turn
ungrateful
Gratitude is both a moral and legal duty
ACTS OF INGRATITUDE COVERED
1. Purely personal

BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
2. Exclusive
Art. 766. Although the donation is revoked on account of
ingratitude, nevertheless, the alienations and mortgages effected
before the notation of the complaint for revocation in the Registry
of Property shall subsist.
Later ones shall be void. (649)
Art. 767. In the case referred to in the first paragraph of the
preceding article, the donor shall have a right to demand from the
donee the value of property alienated which he cannot recover
from third persons, or the sum for which the same has been
mortgaged.
The value of said property shall be fixed as of the time of the
donation. (650)
RULE WHEN THIRD PERSONS HAVE THE PROPERTY, OR WHEN IT
HAS BEEN MORTGAGED
1. Recovery cannot be had from third persons because they are
innocent
2. Or when the property has been mortgage
RULE WHEN DONEE IS INSOLVENT
Rule is that the donor shall have the same rights as of a creditor
of an insolvent debtor
Art. 768. When the donation is revoked for any of the causes stated
in Article 760, or by reason of ingratitude, or when it is reduced
because it is inofficious, the donee shall not return the fruits except
from the filing of the complaint.
If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the
conditions imposed in the donation, the donee shall return not only
the property but also the fruits thereof which he may have received
after having failed to fulfill the condition. (651)
RETURN OF THE FRUITS
1. The fruits accruing from the time the action is filed must be
returned if the ground is
a. Birth-adoption-reappearance (BAR)
b. Inofficiousness of the donation because the legitime is
impaired
BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO
ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
Page 120 of 123
c. ingratitude
2. The fruits received after failure to fulfill the condition
3. In case of money, it should be paid with the legal rate of interest
Art. 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude
cannot be renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one
year, to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the
fact and it was possible for him to bring the action. (652)
NO RENUNCIATION IN ADVANCE OF ACTION TO REVOKE BECAUSE
OF INGRATITUDE
The right to revoke because of ingratitude cannot be renounced in
advance
FORM OF RENUNCIATION
When it can be done in the proper case, renunciation may be done
either expressly or impliedly since the law requires no formality
under this article
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Within one year
Period must be counted from
The donor knew of the fact or cause of ingratitude
Provided that it was possible for him to bring the action
Art. 770. This action shall not be transmitted to the heirs of the
donor, if the latter did not institute the same, although he could
have done so, and even if he should die before the expiration of
one year.
Neither can this action be brought against the heir of the donee,
unless upon the latter's death the complaint has been filed. (653)
GENERALLY, NO TRANSMISSIBILITY OF RIGHT
Art. 771. Donations which in accordance with the provisions of
Article 752, are inofficious, bearing in mind the estimated net value
of the donor's property at the time of his death, shall be reduced
with regard to the excess; but this reduction shall not prevent the
donations from taking effect during the life of the donor, nor shall
it bar the donee from appropriating the fruits.
For the reduction of donations the provisions of this Chapter and of
Articles 911 and 912 of this Code shall govern. (654)
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 121 of 123

RULES RE INOFFICIOUS DONATIONS Art. 773. If, there being two or more donations, the disposable
1. Value of the estate at the time of donors death portion is not sufficient to cover all of them, those of the more
2. Inofficious donations may not only be reduced but they may be recent date shall be suppressed or reduced with regard to the
completely cancelled excess. (656)
3. Since the inofficiousness of the donation cannot be determined till
after the donors death, it follows that in the meantime, the PREFERENCE GIVEN TO EARLIER DONATIONS
donation is valid and ownership is transmitted to the donee during It is essential that in cases there is need to reduce, the
the donors lifetime subsequent ones must first be reduced
If the donations be constituted at the same time, then there will
SOME IMPLICATIONS FROM THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP be proportionate reductions on both
1. The donee gets the fruits while the donor is still alive
2. The donee can take advantage of natural and artificial RESUME
incorporations or attachments
3. The donee bears the loss in case of destruction or deterioration REVOCATION REDUCTION
This is total regardless whether the This is as a rule, only partial and
PREFERENCE OF DONATIONS legitime has been impaired or not applies only when the legitime has
Donations inter vivos are preferred over devisees or legatees been impaired. Thus, the legitime
As a rule, for the benefit of the must always be preserved.
Art. 772. Only those who at the time of the donor's death have a donor
right to the legitime and their heirs and successors in interest may As a rule, for the benefit of the heirs
ask for the reduction or inofficious donations. As a rule, for the benefit of the heirs of the donor, since their legitimes
of the donor are supposed to be preserved
Those referred to in the preceding paragraph cannot renounce their
right during the lifetime of the donor, either by express declaration, GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION:
or by consenting to the donation.
REVOCATION REDUCTION
Fulfillment of resolutory conditions BAR
The donees, devisees and legatees, who are not entitled to the
or charges
legitime and the creditors of the deceased can neither ask for the
Inofficiousness
reduction nor avail themselves thereof. (655a)
Ingratitude
If insufficient property is left for the
PERSONS WHO CAN ASK FOR THE REDUCTION OF INOFFICIOUS
BAR/Birth, Adoption, Reappearance support of the donor and his
DONATIONS
relatives
1. The compulsory heirs of the donor
2. Heirs and successors-in-interest of the compulsory heirs
VOID, INEFFECTIVE OR UNPERFECTED DONATIONS
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD 1. Those not perfected in accordance with the forms and solemnities
Action must be brought within 5 years from the time of donors of the law
death 2. Those made with property outside the commerce of man
3. Those made with future property except those provided in
COLLATION marriage settlements
If the donee happens to be a compulsory heir, he must collate or 4. Those made to persons specially disqualified
bring back the value of the property donated, for its value is 5. By reason of possible undue influence
considered already an advance of his legitime or inheritance

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 122 of 123

N.B:
1. Donation is hard to sustain given the many requirements and
conditions that have to be met.
2. Donation is both an act and a contract
3. There should be consideration given to the differences between a
donation inter vivos and donation mortis causa
4. Take note that there are different applicable rules when it comes
to Civil Law and Taxation. The same question may be asked
regarding donation but there can be different answers depending
on the law being applied, on whether it is civil law or tax law.
FACTS:
Cruz donated an apartment and lot in favor of her nieces. She was a
childless widow. Thereafter, she adopted a minor and sought to annul the
donation.
HELD:
The donation may not be revoked or reduced if there is no adequate
allegation that the legitime would be impaired and if there has been no
inventory submitted.

CHECKLIST WITH REGARD TO DONATIONS: 193 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA V. CA

(C/O ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL) 198 SCRA 300
1. Is the donation gratuitous?
a. If it is onerous, then the law on contracts will apply. FACTS:
2. Is the donation inter vivos? The spouses donated property to the archbishop with the condition that no
a. If it is mortis causa, then the law on succession should disposition shall be made within 100 years.
apply.
3. Does the parties have the capacity to give or receive donations? HELD:
a. Take into consideration those prohibited donations as There is no need for prescription to be applied in cases where there is
against public policy, unworthiness and incapacity given stipulation for automatic reversion. Nonetheless, the stipulation is against
by Articles 1027 and 1032 public policy and thus, is void.
4. Perfection of the donation
5. Are there any grounds for reduction or revocation? 194 DE LUNA V. ABRIGO
a. For reduction, there are three grounds 181 SCRA 150
b. For revocation, there are four grounds
FACTS:
De Luna donated property for the construction of buildings for a school.
CASE DIGESTS: EFFECTS AND LIMITATIONS ON DONATIONS;
Since the conditions were not met, the donation was revoked but was later
REVOCATION AND REDUCTION OF DONATIONS
on revived, setting conditions for the construction of nursery, kindergarden
and chapel.
191 GENATO V. LORENZO
23 SCRA 618
HELD:
When it involves onerous donations, the rules applicable will be that on
FACTS:
contracts and prescription and not those on the rules on donation.
This involved the transfer of shares of Simona Genato in favor of one of her
sons.
195 CENTRAL PHIL. UNIVERSITY V. CA
246 SCRA 511
HELD:
For there to be a valid donation, the delivery and acceptance must be
FACTS:
simultaneously made.
When Don Ramon was still part of the board of trustees of the school, he
donated a lot on the condition that a medical school will be constructed
192 CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
therein. The heirs sought to annul the donation on the ground that the
140 SCRA 245
school wanted to exchange the land with another owned by NHA.

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010
 LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES
BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPILS LECTURE
Page 123 of 123

HELD:
If there has been no compliance with the resolutory condition, the donation
may now be revoked and all rights which have been acquired under it shall
be deemed lost and extinguished.
196 PARKS V. PROVINCE OF TARLAC
49 PHIL 142
FACTS:
Cider and Hill donated parcels of land in favor of the Municipality of Tarlac,
under certain conditions. Without revoking donation, they sold the land to
Parks. The Municipality then conveyed the property to the Province.
Parks filed an action to recover property.
HELD:
The characteristic of a condition precedent is that the acquisition of a right
isnt effected while said condition is not complied with or isnt deemed
complied with. Meanwhile, nothing is acquired and there is only
expectancy of right. Consequently, when a condition is imposed, the
compliance of which cannot be effected except when the right is deemed
acquired, such condition cannot be a condition precedent.
197 AUSTRIA-MAGAT V. CA
375 SCRA 556
Eduarte. Pedro claimed that the signature on the second deed was a
forgery and he sought to revoke the first donation.
HELD:
All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude and are causes for
revocation.
199 NOCEDA V. CA
313 SCRA 504
FACTS:
Directo together with her nephew and another, extrajudicially partitioned
the land donated to them. On the same date, she donated in favor of
Noceda a part of her land. On her share of the land, she fenced it and
constructed three huts therein. On a later date, Noceda removed the
fence, entered the premises and used the three lots. Despite demands for
him to vacate, he refused to do so, prompting Directo to file a case against
him and revoke the donation made by her.
HELD:
The acts of Noceda are acts of usurpation which is an offense against the
property of Directo and considered an act of ingratitude of a donee against
a donor. The law doesnt require conviction of the donee, it is enough that
his offense is proved in the action for revocation.

FACTS:
Comerciante had 5 children. She then bought a residential house and lot
which she donated to her children. The deed contained an acceptance and
irrevocability clause. Thereafter she executed a deed of absolute sale in
favor of Apolinaria.

HELD:
The act of selling the subject property to petitioner herein cannot be
considered as a valid act of revocation of the deed of donation for the
reason that a formal case to revoke must be filed in court.

198 EDUARTE V. CA
253 SCRA 391

FACTS:
Pedro executed a deed of donation in favor of Helen. Amazingly, another
deed showed up wherein he conveyed the whole property to the same. He
donated a portion of his land to a Christian church and then sold another to

BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO

ATENEO LAW 2D 2010