11514749-Property-Reviewer

I.Classification of Property the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements (destination); (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 (destination); (6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included (destination); (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, thought 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. Does not define, only enumerates. Academic Classification of Immovables (NIDA) 1. 2. 3. Nature (trees and plants, land) Incorporation (buildings) Destination or purpose (machinery placed by owner on tenement for direct use of industry or works to be carried on therein) Analogy (like the right of usufruct, public works, servitudes) A. Immovable and Movable 1. Article 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either: (1) Immovable or real property; or (2) Movable or personal property. Parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property. Standard Oil Company v. Jaramillo Building was mortgaged to SOC. SOC sought to compel Jaramillo, register of deeds, to register a CHATTEL mortgage issued in SOC’s favor. The objects of the document were the leasehold rights over a certain property and the house constructed over the same property. Jaramillo refused to register the document because the objects did not appear to be personal property under the Chattel Mortgage Law. SOC filed for mandamus. HELD: The document should be registered. It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property. The register’s duty is MINISTERIAL, he can not determine the nature of the document sought to be registered. 2. Article 415. The following are immovable property: (1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; (2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable; (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object (incorporation); (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 --4. If a building is not adhered to the soil and there is no intent of permanency, it is personal property. --(4) 1. movable property must be placed in an immovable property 2. by the owner of the immovable 3. the intention must be to attach it permanently (destination) cmt Page 1 of 42 3/7/2004 --Provision in lease that improvements made shall belong to the lessor upon termination of the lease – air-conditioner installed by lessee. Will AC be turned over to the lessor? Yes. Lessee acted as an agent of the lessor. --(5) Requisites A. Placed by the owner; B. Intended for an industry or works carried on in building or land; C. Machines must tend to directly meet the needs of the industry; D. Machines must be essential and principal elements in the industry; not mere incidentals. Ex. Sewing machines placed in own house intended to be used as a garments factory. Immovable? Yes. Machines placed by owner; for industry…; tend directly to meet…; essential… If other person’s house, immovable Effect of separation: If temporarily taken away, still immovable. --Sale of real property in the CM Registry cannot bind third persons in good faith. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Agricola purchased rice-cleaning machinery from Strong and executed a chattel mortgage over the machinery and the building in which it was installed. Agricola defaulted and Strong purchased the building at auction. The mortgage and sale were registered in the CM registry. Agricola later sold the land to Strong, the sale being in an unregistered public document. It turns out that the building was also REM to Leung Yee to secure payment of a construction contract. When Agricola defaulted, Leung Yee purchased the building at a sheriff’s sale (this sale took place after the building was bought by Strong). Leung Yee brought suit to recover possession of the building. HELD: Strong has a better right over the building. This is true only because Leung Yee knew of the chattel mortgage to Strong when he purchased the building; he was a buyer in cmt bad faith. The sale of the building cannot bind third persons in good faith because it was the sale of real property registered not in the Registry of Real Property but the CM Registry. A building may be validly mortgaged separately from the land upon which it is built. Prudential Bank v. Judge Panis Owners of a building on leased land obtained 2 loan from the bank, the loans secured by REMs over the building. The owners defaulted, prompting the foreclosure of the mortgage. The respondent court ruled that the REMs were void, holding that a building may not be mortgaged separately from the land on which it is built. HELD: The 1st REM, executed before title of land was transferred to the mortgagor, is valid. Article 415 mentions ‘buildings’ separate from land; this means that the building by itself is an immovable and may be the subject of a REM. The 2nd REM, executed after title was transferred, is void for being violative of the Public Land Act. To be considered as real property by destination, the machinery etc. must be (1) essential and principal elements of the industry and (2) the industry must be carried out in a building or piece of land Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax on certain MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR EQUIPMENT of MBC. MBC opposed, contending that the items were not real property; the items in question are movable. HELD: The items are personal property. They are not immobilized by destination or purpose as contended by the City Assessor. To be considered as real property by destination, they must be (1) essential and principal elements of the industry and (2) the industry must be carried out in a building or piece of land. In this case, the items are only incidentals to the transport business and the business is 3/7/2004 Page 2 of 42 carried on not in a building or piece of land but around the streets of Mindanao. (4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they are fixed. A stipulation in the lease agreement to treat the real property as personal is binding upon the parties. The parties are estopped from claiming otherwise. Serg’s Products v. PCI Leasing PCI filed a complaint for a sum of money and an application for a writ of replevin on the chocolate manufacturing equipment of Serg’s. Serg’s claims property is real and not subject to a writ of seizure. HELD: The property is real under Article 415 BUT it was stipulated in the lease agreement that they would be treated as personal. Serg’s is ESTOPPED from claiming that they are real in character. For purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property and may be attached and executed upon. Sibal v. Valdez Sibal’s sugarcane crops were attached and sold to Valdez in order to satisfy a judgment debt. The lot on which the crops were located had been previously attached and sold to another creditor, Macondray. Valdez later purchased the land from Macondray. Sibal sought to redeem the sugarcane from Valdez on the assumption that it was real property (growing fruits attached to the land). Plaintiff contends that the sugarcane is personal property and not subject to redemption. HELD: Although the sugarcane may be considered as growing fruits and is ordinarily real property, for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, the crops must be regarded as personal property. This is because the right to the growing crops given to the defendant mobilized the crops by anticipation. It is as if there was a gathering in advance rendering the crop movable. Steel electric towers are personal property provided they can be removed without substantial breakage or deterioration. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Meralco The City Assessor sought to impose realty tax on steel towers of MERALCO. The taxes were paid under protest, MERALCO contending that the towers were exempt from taxation and that they were personal and not real property. HELD: The towers are personal property. They are not buildings adhered to the soil (415-1); they are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner and they can be separated without substantial damage or deterioration (3) and they are not machineries intended for works on the land (5). Electricity may be appropriated; it can be the object of theft. US v. Carlos Accused was convicted for the theft of electric current by means of a jumper. Accused contends that electricity is intangible and cannot be the object of theft. HELD: Accused is guilty of theft. 3. Article 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property: (1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article; (2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty; (3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and The Revised Penal Code provides that personal property is the subject of theft. Electricity is a valuable article of merchandise and can be bought and sold like any other personal property. The true test of what is a proper subject of larceny is not whether the subject is corporeal or incorporeal, but whether it is capable of appropriation by another than the owner. cmt Page 3 of 42 3/7/2004 Article 417. The following are also considered as personal property: (1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and (2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial, and industrial entities, although they may have real estate. (1) Examples are: the right to recover stolen property and promissory notes as these involve movables or demandable sums (2) Even if the sole property of the corporation is real property, a share in such corporation is personal property. In fact, all shares in all juridical persons are considered personal. The property right of shares of stock can only be enforced or exercised where the corporation is organized or has its place of business. (3) Money is always personal property. Money is not merchandise when in domestic circulation; it becomes merchandise when it is exported or taken out of domestic circulation. 4. Article 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. Article 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (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. Public dominion (def.): a) ownership by the State in that the State has control and administration; or b) ownership by the public in general. Three Kinds Of Property Of Public Dominion: 1) For public use – roads, canals for use by everyone 2) For public service – government buildings and vehicles for use by authorized persons 3) For the development of national wealth – natural resources. Article 418. Movable property is either consumable or non-consumable. To the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; to the second class belong all others. Classifications of movable property (1) According to NATURE: a. Consumable – cannot be used according to its nature without being consumed Non-consumable – any other kind of movable property Canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership. Santos v. Moreno The Ayala’s originally constructed the canals to facilitate the operations of their nipa plantation. The Ayala’s later transformed their nipa plantation into several fishponds by constructing dams or dikes to block the flow of water in canals located in the plantation. This property was later sold to Santos, who further developed the property for aquaculture. Local residents sought the destruction of the dikes stating that their construction prevented them from using the canals for transportation, caused flooding, and deprived them of fishing grounds. b. (2) According to INTENTION: a. Fungible – Mutuum - borrowed for consumption and equivalent property will be returned Non-fungible – Commodatum exact same property will be returned. b. B. Property in Relation to the Person to whom it Belongs cmt Page 4 of 42 3/7/2004 *Even if the property were patrimonial. Being so. (341a) Public plazas and streets are of public character and may not be leased out by the municipality. it was given with the understanding that it would be used for the government sector. The property in question was given with the intention of its being the site of the Philippine Embassy. Garcia The government sought to sell a property located in Japan which it acquired through a reparation agreement with the Japanese government. Conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. Asingan. shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. it cannot be alienated. (340a) Art. HELD: The contract of lease is ultra vires and null and void. Compare to Sanchez v. This is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the Property owned by the State which is not intended for public use or public service is patrimonial.ISSUE: whether the canals are of public dominion or private ownership. Mun. of Asingan Petitioner occupied a parcel of land owned by the municipality. 422. there could be no sale as there is no law authorizing the same. *The book says that Rojas received no benefit but the facts show that occupation was enjoyed and a house was built. conversion of a property’s character from public to patrimonial requires a formal declaration of abandonment of the public character. Contrary to respondents’ claim. There is no reimbursement if lessee derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. which is not of the character stated in the preceding article. HELD: The property is public – its ownership is collective and resides in the sovereign people. cmt Page 5 of 42 3/7/2004 . corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. Property of public dominion. the council gave notice to petitioner to vacate the land within 5 months. 421. their destruction may not be ordered. when no longer intended for public use or for public service. The property is of public dominion and intended for public service under Article 420 of the Civil Code. the government has implicitly abandoned the public use of the property and caused it to become patrimonial by transferring the embassy to another location and other executive acts. conversely. and built buildings of light materials – rent was paid. Article 420 states that canals constructed by the State are of public ownership. When a new set of officials took over. All other property of the State. Art. with the implied consent of the latter. Respondents claim that the property is governed not by the Civil Code but by Japanese law and assuming that the CC were applicable. Laurel v. It is outside the commerce of man. Sanchez v. the municipality never having had authority to exclude it from public use and lease it out. is patrimonial property. Property belonging to the public domain is outside the commerce of man and cannot be the object of any contract. canals constructed by private persons within private lands are of private ownership. Rojas The municipal council of Cavite withdrew from public use and leased to Rojas a portion of the town plaza. ISSUE: Whether the property is public or patrimonial. The defendant must return the land and the municipality must reimburse rentals paid. HELD: The canals are private. The provincial fiscal later filed a complaint alleging that the property leased was of public character and therefore the contract was null and void. Municipality of Cavite v. Unlike the Rojas case.Petitioner refused and filed for prohibition stating that the land belonged to the province and the municipality had no standing to seek their ejectment and in case they should be ejected. The implied lease agreement is therefore valid and may be terminated upon notice. city streets. City of Cebu v. promenades. public. There is to be no reimbursement. Nor can the system be considered “public works for public service” under Article 424 because such classification is qualified by ejusdem generis. NAWASA The City of Cebu obtained a loan which was to be paid with its own funds. and public works for public service paid for by said provinces. the land here is not of public character. and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. It is therefore patrimonial under the Civil Code. cities. patrimonial. hospitals. and schools. cities. HELD: The property is patrimonial and not subject to legislative control. without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. etc. Where now do properties for public service and properties for the development of national wealth fall? Public service – depends on who pays for the service. as an alternative course of action. This was opposed with the arguments that there was no payment of just compensation. Part of the proceeds of this loan was used to fund the construction of the City’s sewage system. ISSUE: Whether the land is public or patrimonial. What if a courthouse is constructed with municipal funds? clarify City constructs public market Cemetery public use patrimonial Under the Law of Municipal Corporations. cities. Examples of property for public use being streets. HELD: The land is patrimonial property of the municipality. CA HERE 5. 423. Art. ISSUE: Whether the property is patrimonial property of the city or property for public use. The properties were the capital site. The property of provinces. it must be of the same character as the preceding items. that the property is one for public use and under the control of the legislature. fountains. fountains. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code. promenades. Property of a political subdivision is public only if it is devoted to public use. there can still be no reimbursement as petitioner derived substantial benefit from the use of said property. Art. If paid for by the political subdivision. Property for public use. public waters. playgrounds. Province of Zamboanga v. the squares. City of Zamboanga Zamboanga City ceased to become the provincial capital and a law was passed declaring the province’s property located within the city to be transferred to the city free of charge. purchased with private funds and not devoted to public use (it is for profit). municipal streets. in the provinces. or municipalities. It is property of the city. cmt Page 6 of 42 3/7/2004 . It was not for public use not was it for public service. if for profit. prayed for reimbursement. consist of the provincial roads. NAWASA averred. Assuming that the property is public. and municipalities. NAWASA offered unliquidated assets and liabilities. INSERT REPUBLIC V. 424. NAWASA sought to expropriate the sewage system. citing the Rojas case. National wealth – still property for public use under the regalian doctrine. it is enough that the property be devoted for governmental purposes for it to be classified as public. Municipal Council of Iloilo Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco compensation for properties taken from her and used for street-widening. applying the CC. Tan Toco caused a writ of execution to be issued against municipal property: street sprinkling trucks. tolerance by the municipality). The vehicles and the police station all serve governmental functions. Iloilo’s defense is that the properties are public and exempt from execution. The character of the property depends on the use to which it is devoted. In this case. HELD: The properties are public and exempt from execution. A town plaza loses its public character when the town ceases using it as such and subjects it to patrimonial use. Municipality of Oas v. Although the property is now patrimonial and susceptible of ownership. Also the LMC is a special law. Viuda de Tan Toco v. though not purely public is also exempt because it would allow a third party to the franchise agreement to assume control without the approval of the administration. Because Iloilo had no money. Under municipal law. He had erected a substantial building on the property without opposition from the municipality. It is patrimonial because the town had long since ceased using it as a plaza and had started using it as storage space. consequences are dire (acquisition through adverse possession). a property is public if it is for the free and indiscriminate use of everyone. and markets. Roa The Municipality of Oas sought to recover land from Roa claiming it was part of the town’s public square. Roa claims he is the owner of the property. However. Since both parties are in bad faith (Roa’s construction despite knowledge. the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. If the province owns the properties in it public and governmental capacity. The market. they shall be treated as though they are both in good faith. Public properties are exempt from execution because of their necessity for governmental functions. -- cmt Page 7 of 42 3/7/2004 . The problem is which applies. police stations. Civil Code or Law of Municipal Corporations? Under the CC. police cars.ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the properties to the City without compensating the province. it is sufficient that the property be devoted to governmental purposes. The LMC provides that a property is public if it is devoted to public use. If the CC classification is used. The town may sell the land to Roa or Roa may sell the improvements to Roa. HELD: The land belongs to the municipality as shown by several town resolutions signed by Roa himself. the properties are public and subject to the absolute control of Congress. Municipal law applies because the controversy is more municipal than civil and the properties are needed for the performance of governmental functions. the properties are not for public use but merely for public service. HELD: Yes. The CC itself provides that its provisions apply without prejudice to special laws. How do we resolve what determines character? Salas v. Jarencio: How the property was purchased public/private funds Or Civil code: What use the property is devoted to free and indiscriminate use of everyone or otherwise Or LMC: Property is public if it is exclusively devoted to public service. The buildings on the lots are also public because accessory follows the principal. Roa has failed to show any of the modes of acquiring ownership. disposition." or "movable things or property. as a rule. or an individual declaration. consists of all property belonging to private persons. without prejudice to the provisions of the law. books." is used. the contrary clearly appears. arms. 425. Whenever by provision of the law. scientific or artistic collections. Right to Use The right to exclude any person. (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) – when the ownership is vested in two or more owners. 427." or "furniture. or the individual declaration. except where from the context of the law. no force. Naked ownership plus usufruct equals full ownership. (c) Sole ownership – where the ownership is vested in only one person.Art. and recovery. clothing. Art. Art. A. grains. enjoyment. enjoyment. and municipalities. besides the patrimonial property of the State. 1.) – Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession. credits. Usufruct equals full ownership minus naked ownership. But to recover." is used alone. stocks and bonds. i. horses or carriages and their accessories. ii. Page 8 of 42 c. The right to hold a thing or to enjoy a right. In General 6. Whenever the word "muebles. 2. Ownership (def. 426. provinces. either individually or collectively. Reasonable force may be used to prevent or repel physical invasion. but legal means must be used. or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building. cities. jewelry. (345a) i. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing. respectively. It means that the thing or right is subject to control of my will. Naked ownership equals full ownership minus usufruct. 2. b. Art. liquids and merchandise. b. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. without other limitations than those established by law. What Right to Dispose Right to Consume. the expression "immovable things or property. a. Right to Enjoy a. The rights of an owner: 1. (b) Naked ownership – this is ownership where the right to use and the fruits has been denied. 428. Ownership iii. Right to Possess i. it shall be deemed to include. Right to the Fruits i. or Abuse Right To Encumber Or Alienate 3/7/2004 cmt . The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. Destroy. medals. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. commercial securities. disposition. the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. and recovery Kinds of Ownership (not discussed) (a) Full ownership – this includes all the rights of an owner. Independent – stands by itself and gives you the right to control the property General . subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons. it shall not be deemed to include money.possession. (346a) II. Property of private ownership. Accion Reivindicatoria i. cmt Page 9 of 42 3/7/2004 . 429. Possession is lawful form the beginning. 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. WHAT? This is the action that must be brought when possession by a landlord. ISSUE? The issue involved is one of ownership. ii. ditches. the period should be counted from discovery. WHAT? This is the action for the recovery of the better right to possess. Right to Recover iii. threats. Art. WHAT? This is a summary action to recover physical possession of real property when a person originally in possession was deprived thereof by FISTS (force. Forcible Entry (MTC) i. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from the time the possession becomes unlawful. 1. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. Accion Publiciana (plenary action) i. vendee or other person of any land or building is being unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract. d. but in case of strategy or stealth. live or dead hedges. iii. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls. ISSUE? The issue involved is who has a better right to posses. Recovery of Personal Property a. WHEN? Must be brought within ten years. or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. **Difference between unlawful detainer and forcible entry: UD possession of other is initially lawful. WHEN? Must be brought within one year from dispossession. Unlawful Detainer (MTC) i. WHEN? This must be brought within 10/30 years depending on whether the other party seeks to obtain ownership through ordinary/extraordinary prescription. iii. Replevin 2. iii. FE possession is unlawful from the outset c. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. ii. For this purpose. WHAT? This is an action to recover ownership over real property. 2. 430. Art. Actions to Recover Property: 1. one year from demand to vacate. or If the reason is nonpayment of rent. intimidation. vendor. b. Recovery of Real Property a. strategy) Possession is unlawful from the beginning. ii. de jure and not de facto possession is the issue here. ii.3. One year from expiration of lease. stealth. ISSUE? The issue involved is mere physical possession and not juridical possession nor ownership. 431. cannot be defeated even by adverse. It is a well settled rule that a title. 434. Art. land will be sufficiently subdivided. not only could the private respondents claim acquisitive prescription in good faith (they had title and possessed the property in good faith for well over ten years). Requisites In An Action To Recover: 1. once registered. CA (skipped) The heirs of Vencilao claim that they (and prior to them. In an action to recover. The description should be so definite that an officer of the court might ho to the locality where the land is situated and definitely locate it. Art. the heirs of Miranda entered the property and prevented Agerico from cultivating it. Agerico has been in possession and cultivation since then. a. and notorious possession. Heirs of Vencilao v. Reliance on title of the plaintiff and not on the weakness of the defense’s claim. Charito. 432. Art. acting as administrator of the estate. the property must be identified. 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. They present tax receipts and CARP documents to support their claim. Best proof is a Torrens certificate. cmt Page 10 of 42 3/7/2004 . Heirs of Miranda v. ISSUE: Whether the property belongs to Agerico/Charito or to the heirs of Miranda. sold the property in issue to private respondent. In this case. ownership and other real rights over immovables is acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. Is a technical description required or will a statement of boundaries suffice? If in a developed area. it is rebuttable. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. b. (2) BAD FAITH 30 years in adverse possession. Agerico. Without need of title or of good faith. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. the son of Miranda. HELD: The property belongs to Agerico/Charito. tax declarations are only prima facie evidence of ownership. their father) have been in adverse possession of the property in issue for over thirty years. Property must be identified a. The property was titled in the name of Agerico’s daughter. The action of the heirs has been barred by prescription. they could also claim ownership through extraordinary prescription by possessing the property in the concept of owner for thirty years. In 1991. 2. CA (skipped) In 1957. open. The heirs filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the title. 7. an action for forcible entry was brought and the heirs of Miranda were ordered to vacate the land. is much greater. Tax receipts. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person. compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference. Ownership over real property is acquired by acquisitive prescription through adverse possession with title and in good faith for ten years. WHY? Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.Art. Acquisitive prescription: (1) GOOD FAITH 10 years with just title and adverse possession. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. 433. or other precious objects. jewelry. 2. once registered. Art. (2) foreclosed.The Gepalagos (private respondents) claim ownership of the land based on the TCT. Art. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health. Art. jewelry. complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation. 436. he in not expected to make further investigations or inquiries. and notorious possession. Special Laws (mining law). unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. 3. and (3) sold. Requisites: 1. the State may acquire them at their just price. If the things found be of interest to science or the arts. * Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land. If there is nothing that indicates any irregularity. or of the State or any of its subdivisions. building. On the other hand. and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper. ordinances. Consists of money. the heirs of Vencilao are estopped from claiming ownership to the land due to their silence (1) when the property was mortgaged. any hidden and unknown deposit of money. Should this requirement be not first complied with. open. Meaning of other precious objects: 1. in a proper case. he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. as is the case here. 437. when the discovery is made on the property of another. the lawful ownership of which does not appear. Servitudes or easements. When the TCT is in the name of the seller when the land is sold. onehalf thereof shall be allowed to the finder. or other property on which it is found. they are no longer innocent purchasers for value. The only exception is when an irregularity appears and the buyer chooses to ignore the same. the courts shall protect and. requisites: 1. ISSUE: Who has a better right to the land: a claimant by acquisitive prescription or a claimant by deed of sale recorded in the TCT of the vendor/mortgagee as highest bidder in a foreclosure sale? HELD: The titled owner has a better right. 5. or other precious objects. cannot be defeated even by adverse. They claim to have acquired the land in a public bidding following its foreclosure by PNB. *(technical description) By Art. Surface Right of a Land Owner is subject to: 1. 4. Their lawful ownership does not appear. the buyer has a right to rely on what appears on the face of the document. Nevertheless. restore the owner in his possession. Art. It must be by chance cmt Page 11 of 42 3/7/2004 . who owns the money? School. 2. 435. He cannot treasure is understood. for legal purposes. 439. 2. and by chance. If the finder is a trespasser. 3. Principles on human relations and the prevention of injury to the rights of third persons (unnecessary obstruction of the light and view of a neighbor). It is a well settled rule that a title. which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated. Finding in others’ property. Hidden and unknown deposit (finding it must be a discovery. Restricted by ejusdem generis to mean objects of the same class as money and jewelry. How about money found in a book loaned from the library. * The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it. the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation. in this case. safety or security. reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. 438. without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby. RBPLLOP-PLAOSI] *When does the owner of the land NOT own the fruits? [PAUL] b. the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. 4. Real property i. c. Accession by attachment or incorporation (continua) a. justice. or which is incorporated or attached thereto. 2. [SPS-YOPA. engrafment attachment weaving cmt Page 12 of 42 3/7/2004 . painting writing 2. building planting sowing Article 441. 2. alluvium avulsion change of course of rivers formation of islands Article 442. To the owner belongs: (1)The natural fruits. the only modes of acquiring ownership are: [STOPID-Love] a) succession b) tradition as a consequence of certain contracts c) occupation d) prescription e) intellectual creation f) donation g) law *What are the reasons behind accession? a) As to the fruits. 5. Finder must not be a trespasser. Article 440. 3. ii. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. (2)The industrial fruits. ii. Accession to the fruits (discreta) a. 3. and economic convenience (better to have one owner than two) B. Civil fruits are the rents of building. Natural fruits Industrial fruits Civil fruits mixture (confusion – liquids. commixtion – solids) specification iii. the owner of the principal should own the attachment. (3)The civil fruits. Is accession a mode of acquiring ownership? No. Adjunction or conjunction 1. either naturally or artificially. or b) incorporated or attached thereto. 4. either naturally or artificially (accession continua). and the young and other products of animals. pure and simple. PLAK-CL. Accession industrial 1. because the one who owns the thing should own its fruits. 2. Accession natural 1. 3. Personal property i. What does by chance mean? SC/Paras – by chance means by good luck. b) As to incorporation and attachment. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil. What are the classifications of accession? A. [OPRAE-PIANA] *What is accession? It is the right of a property owner to everything which is: a) produced thereby (accession discreta). b.a. To whom does this provision apply? Article 443 applies only to a planter/possessor in bad faith. ISSUE: Whether the bonus is a civil fruit. On the other hand. it is not similar income to the items in the preceding enumeration. Ledesma. *When can we say that the fruit is in existence? It depends on the type of fruit: a. Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM provided by one of its planters. Bachrach. and income from life annuities. laid a claim to the bonus received by the latter. What if the expenses exceed the value of the product. the offspring would belong to the owner of the female). Though it is possible to consider the bonus as income. gathering. Article 444. where the creditor gets the fruits.a) Possessor of the land receives the fruits in good faith. which is absent in the bonus. is the planter in bad faith still entitled to reimbursement? Only if the owner still requires delivery of the fruits. thereby giving PNB a preferential right over it. Improvements are not included. If the fruits have not yet been gathered? Article 448 applies if the planter or sower is in good faith. Ledesma. b. the bonus is not based on the value of the land but rather on the amount of the outstanding obligation of Talisay. corn) – deemed manifest the moment their seedlings appear. Annual (must be planted every year/must re-plant after harvest. They must be those normally required by the crop. SOWING. Perennial (only planted once and bear fruit for several seasons. the lessee owns the offspring. leases of lands. They must be necessary. c) Usufructuary (right to enjoy the fruits). (1) the paternity is uncertain and (2) during pregnancy. as a creditor of Ledesma. Page 13 of 42 3/7/2004 . gathering. mango and coconut trees) – deemed to exist only when they actually appear. But if the female is leased. The rule is that if the planter is in good faith. He who receives the fruits is…? … the owner of the land. Talisay-Silay Milling Company. Talisay granted him a bonus whose value was computed as a percentage of the balance of the loan. A bonus received as compensation for the risk taken by a mortgagor who received no value from the loan is not considered a civil fruit. The common denominator. wheat. Article 449 if he is in bad faith. *To whom does the offspring of an animal belong when the male and female belong to different owners? The offspring belongs to the mother because. PNB claims that it owns the fruits. v. or preservation. PLANTING. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. the mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the property. he is entitled to the fruits already received. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production. To compensate Ledesma for the accommodation. because under Article 2127. In this case. or other similar sources of income. What are the kinds of expenses subject to reimbursement? a. HELD: The bonus is not a civil fruit. It is clearly meant to be cmt b. and preservation. d) Lessee gets the natural and industrial fruits (owner gets civil fruits). Bachrach Motor Co. and not excessive. b) Antichresis. is derivation of the income from the land itself. Article 443. Civil fruits are the rents of the buildings. They must be for production. compensation for the risk assumed by the owner. rice. because the lease is onerous (if it were commodatum. the female is useless and her owner bears the expenses. When is the builder/landowner in good faith/ bad faith? When he believed the materials were his own/knew the materials belonged to another. planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon. If A is in bad faith. B can remove the materials. ordinarily. while still growing. they will be treated as if they were in good faith. e. Whatever is built. Accessory follows the principal With certain exceptions. Every day. Article 448. or without the plantings. regardless of damage caused or demand payment. f.000/month. they shall be treated as if they were in good faith. personally or through another. Civil fruits accrue daily and are considered personal property and may be pro-rated. * What are the basic principles of accession continua (accession industrial)? a. A may be compelled to pay for the materials. He who is in good faith may be held responsible but not penalized. A may keep the materials. The owner of the land on which anything has been built. he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. how about natural fruits? a. shall pay their value. with a right to be reimbursed for damages. he should deliver half of that to B. it should be impossible to separate the principal and accessory without causing substantial damage. A is entitled to 15K and B is entitled to 15K. That all works. When both are in bad faith. Natural and industrial fruits. No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. *When are civil fruits deemed to exist. Article 445. All works. constructions or works with the materials of another. the property produces 1. A built house with B’s materials. the owner of the materials may remove them in any event. b. If B is in bad faith. c. if he acted in bad faith. b. Ex. b. They should be considered existing only at the commencement of the maximum ordinary period for gestation. When is the owner of the materials in good faith/bad faith? When he does not know that his materials were being used/when he knows and does not object. constructions or works being destroyed.000 If B owned the property from 1-5 and B owned the property from 16-30. Both were in good faith. sowing. with damages in either case. Ex. sowing and planting are made by the owner. belong to the owner of the land. He who is in bad faith may be penalized. Article 446. Apply now the principle that civil fruits accrue daily. and. sown or cmt Page 14 of 42 3/7/2004 . d. are considered as real property. subject to the provisions of the following articles. If this cannot be done or if B doesn’t want to remove the materials. they cannot be pro-rated. At his own expense. There is no indemnity and A may seek for damages because the materials may be inferior in quality. and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense. If A is paid 30K at the beginning of the month. Article 447. if the landowner acted in bad faith. plantings. House rented for 30. What are the presumptions of Article 446? a. 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. If both are in bad faith. B is entitled to remove the materials provided no damage is caused.*When are animal young considered as existing? They are considered existing even if still in the maternal womb. What are the rights of the parties? Who calls the shots? B. The owner of the land who makes thereon. unless the contrary is proved. However. This is because civil fruits accrue DAILY. in case it is the option to purchase the improvement. d. Can the owner of the land choose to appropriate and then later change his mind? No. Luxurious expenses a. Necessary expenses a. or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land. If this is the case. However. shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works. If the landowner chooses to compel the builder to buy the land. These are reimbursable only if the landowner decides to appropriate them. and the one who sowed. are spent or add value to the property. can the builder be obliged to purchase the land? Generally. after payment of the indemnity provided in articles 546 and 548. What are the rules on good faith in Article 448? Both must be in good faith. He cannot compel removal of the improvement.planted in good faith. What if the owner chooses to appropriate the building. What are the indemnities to be given to the builder in good faith? 1. production. b) He may compel the builder or planter to buy the land and the sower to pay rents. sowing or planting. what is his obligation? The landowner must now indemnify the builder for the value of the building. the landowner fails to pay? The builder has the right to occupy the building up to the date of payment. 3. What if after choosing to appropriate the building. However if the value of the land is not considerably more. In this case. and upkeep Repairs required by the wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing. These are the only choices he has. the duty is monetary and the landowner’s properties may be levied to satisfy the debt. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement. What if the owner refuses to make a choice? There are no remedies except those provided by the law in Article 448. the choice is irrevocable. the proper rent. yes. Useful expenses a. they can agree on terms of lease. he shall pay reasonable rent. Who is given the choice and why? What are the choices? The owner must be given the choice because the accessory follows the principal: a) He may appropriate what has been built. and in case of disagreement. Those that augment the income of the thing upon which they cmt Page 15 of 42 3/7/2004 . if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. if he opts to sell the portion to the builder and the builder fails to pay. The landowner is not the owner of the property until indemnification is made. 2. I THINK that the builder in good faith should ask the court to determine a reasonable amount of rent and deposit the same regularly with the court. or sown. the courts shall fix the same. Those made for the preservation of the thing those without which the thing would deteriorate or be lost those incurred for cultivation. unless the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the building. c. the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerable more than that of the building or trees. In such case. Once the choice has been made. However. he may demolish the structure. the court shall fix the terms thereof. planted. the builder may be compelled. He has the right of retention until payment is made. b. What if the owner above allows the builder to remain but charges rentals for possession of the land? No rentals may be charged. Since both parties were in bad faith. the owners of the lot caused judgment to be rendered ordering Pecson to transfer the building for the original cost of construction. Abesia). HELD: The fair market value of the building should be paid. However. Several years later. the subsequent partition caused 448 to apply (Del Ocampo v. the landowner does not have to choose between buying the structures and selling the property. It follows that if Pecson is allowed to retain possession of the thing. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built an apartment building. They to not have a permanent character and were not attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity. The landowner is not compelled to choose between appropriating the property and selling the land. he enjoys ownership until he is fully compensated. In computing the amount to be paid to a builder in good faith. HELD: 448 should apply. the FMV of the structure should be used. in separate suit for recovery of possession. cmt Page 16 of 42 3/7/2004 . Since the structures are merely temporary. ISSUE: Whether 448 should apply. The lot was sold at public auction because of his failure to pay realty taxes. he is also allowed to retain the income generated by the building and not pay rent.If the builder is the son of the landowner and permission is granted. the dryer and store are temporary structures. If the land is co-owned. he cannot be made to pay rents. Private respondents. The objective of Article 546 is to administer justice between the parties. they will be treated as if they were in good faith for purposes of indemnity and Article 448 will apply: the builder of the structures will pay rent until the structures are dismantled. CA Alviola occupied Tinagan’s land and built a copra drier and put up a store where they engaged in copra trade. may retain the thing until he is reimbursed for it. Article 448 applies. this was done in bad faith but with the tolerance of Tinagan. but only as to indemnity. Alviola claims that the copra dryer and store are permanent structures (hollowblock walls and cement floor) and that 448 should apply. it was held that the apartment building was not included in the execution because the certificate of sale was silent on the issue of the building. the builder is in good faith. whether Pecson should pay rent. In this case. this can be accomplished by giving Pecson the present value of the building. Article 448 applies. Pecson was also ordered to pay rentals of 21K per month (the income of the building from its tenants) until he vacates the premises. Article 546 also provides that a possessor in good faith. as Pecson is. with part of one house encroaching on the other’s partition. Nuguids. What should the landowner choose? Sell the small portion of the land because what will be the use of a portion of a building? When the structures built in good faith on the land of another are of a temporary character. Alviola v. Pecson is entitled to the right of retention. The right of retention enjoyed by the builder allows him to possess the property and its fruits until he is fully indemnified. the heirs of Tinagan filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Alviola. in this case. 53K. are now the owners of the lot. However. When Pecson challenged the auction. and the land is partitioned. ISSUE: Whether the construction value of the building should be paid. Pecson v. Even though the construction wasn’t on the land of another. Tecnogas should continue paying rent until transfer of ownership. Tecnogas should pay rent on the land until the time Uy communicates his choice. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying. loses what is built. cmt Page 17 of 42 3/7/2004 . The builder’s right of retention exists only when the landowner opts to purchase the property. or that the planting or sowing be removed. but when the property is partitioned and the circumstances covered by 448 are present. it was not a purchaser in good faith. registered mortgage). Good faith is presumed and since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the original builder. knowing the trade of SOLID. of a deed of sale (unregistered sale v. However. The exception: where there are facts that would induce a reasonably prudent man to make further inquiries. Abesia Del OCampo and Abeisa are co-owners of the subject property. of the property of Del Ocampo. shall have the option to appropriate said structure upon payment of indemnity or sell the portion encroached upon to the other. planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work. 450. in good faith. Before a deed of sale could be executed. the exception is where the purchases has knowledge of facts to induce a prudent man to inquire into the status of the property. The CA held that. CA Tecnogas’s property encroached on Uy’s property. no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his title. it may be applied. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 applies. Though the rule is that a purchaser need not go beyond the four corners of the title. it had no authority to do so. should have made sure there was no adverse claim on the property before accepting it as a mortgage. 2/3 and 1/3.Good faith is presumed. CA Sps. An action for partition was filed and the partition showed that the house of Abesia occupied 5 sqm. If the choice is compulsory sale. This negligence takes the place of registration of the rights of the Oretas. Del Ocampo v. Article 448 now applies. planted or sown without right to indemnity. The owner of the land on which anything has been built. the builder must pay rent until transfer of ownership. SOLID mortgaged the property to SIH. though Tecnogas purchased the property with improvements already constructed. planted or sowed. despite the absence Art. HELD: Yes. SIH. because the property was partitioned. SOLID no longer had ownership and free disposal when it mortgaged the property. it was foreclosed. Tecnogas v. Oreta purchased a house and lot from SOLID. HELD: Yes. plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another. it was in bad faith because an owner of a property is supposed to know its metes and bounds. respectively. Article 448 provides that a property owner on whose property there has been built a structure by another. HELD: Article 448 cannot apply to coownership situations. in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built. ISSUE: Whether Article 448 can apply to this case considering the parties are co-owners. Article 448 does not apply to co-owners. He who builds. 449. good faith on the part of the builder passes on to his successor. and the sower the proper rent. The rule: a purchaser need not go beyond the title. or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land. the character of possession passes on to the current possessor. Uy must choose between the two options in Article 448. ISSUE: Whether the Oretas have a better right over the property. Art. if the choice is compulsory sale. State Investment House v. The builder. a house on A’s land (A being in good faith). While Article 449 applies. Idiris was adjudged to be owner after which he sold the land to Lumungo. In the cases of the two preceding articles. the planter. Article 452. 452. A IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN EACH CASE. Construction on the litigated land after such judgment/summons is construction in bad faith. A buyer of land under litigation. Datu Idiris filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the land. owned a house on the lot – this house was reconstructed into a bigger one after his Page 18 of 42 3/7/2004 . what are the alternative rights of A? 1. A may compel B to buy the land. is a buyer in bad faith. Angeles knew of the ongoing dispute between Idiris and Usman. Subsequently. 3. A may demand demolition of the house. desire to resolve the contract but Datu Idiris never returned the money he received. and preservation). not to gathered crops which are governed by Article 443 (the planter/sower is entitled to reimbursement for expenses in their gathering. Usman then sold the lots to Angeles. planter or sower. Article 449 applies only to standing crops. B IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR PRESERVATION OF THE LAND What is the rule on reimbursement of a builder in bad faith? He must be reimbursed the necessary expenses for the preservation of the land because the true owner would have borne such expenses anyway. Lumungo v. Usman. because trees are not necessary expenses for the preservation of the land. which Usman did not contest. HELD: Angeles is NOT entitled to reimbursement Article 449 provides that he who plants in bad faith on the land of another loses the right to indemnity. A builder/planter in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement for improvements. they are IMPROVEMENTS. planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder. on the other hand. Land taxes. Article 452 does not. production. Lumungo may appropriate (for free) the trees. in bad faith. Mojica The lot in question was partitioned and Santos’s parents were ordered to pay rents for the portion they were occupying. 451. at B’s expense. who planted 3000 coconut trees. Leonardo. Mrs. whether or not the value is considerably more than that of the house. 2. are reimbursable. In this case. They failed to pay and a writ of execution was issued ordering them to vacate the lot. Angeles. Art. with knowledge of the same. who was not a party to the suit. Usman Datu Idiris sold the property in question to Mrs. knew of the dispute over the land when he purchased the same.Art. though not technically necessary expenses. with damages in either case. compel Angeles to pay for the land. If B builds. It has been settled that Lumungo has a better right to the property and the only question is… ISSUE: Whether Angeles is entitled to reimbursement for the trees planted. Does Article 449 refer to both standing and gathered crops? No. or order their demolition at the expense of Angeles. both parties expressed their cmt A successor-in-interest is bound by the judgment (and summons) against his predecessors. there was partial payment. provides that the planter in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses for preservation of the land. Santos v. A may get the house without paying indemnity. HELD: No. or Remove or destroy the house + damages. Bugatti occupied the property and began construction. They are also entitled to damages equivalent to rentals beginning from the time of occupation until eventual eviction. When he buys land knowing that there has been construction by a person other than the owner and who pays only for the land. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. Builder a. the Baguilat’s have the option to: (1) take possession of the building without payment of indemnity. the house should be demolished. A prospective lessee who builds on the land of a prospective lessor despite the absence of a valid contract and the presence of objections to the construction is clearly in bad faith. B may: 1. When building / planting / sowing is knowingly done on land belonging to another. ISSUE: Whether Bugatti is a builder in good faith? HELD: No. cmt Page 19 of 42 3/7/2004 . much less construct a building thereupon. Santos is in BAD FAITH. thereby entitling him to the benefits of Article 448. 2.parents were summoned in the above mentioned case. If there was bad faith. 454. Even before preparing the lease. Compel A to pay for the house + damages. 453. ordered the house demolished. ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Santos is in good faith. Though not a party to the suit in which his parents were ordered to vacate the lot. Landowner a. Bugatti is a builder in BAD faith. or (3) compel Bugatti to purchase the land whether or not its value considerably exceeds the value of the improvement. any improvements he made are lost in favor of the landowners (3 options). If B. As such. Bugatti v. There is bad faith on Bugatti’s part because he had no right to occupy the property. they agreed provided that the contract would contain certain terms and conditions. When the act (building/planting/sowing) was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. in good faith. The judge. part because they repeatedly gave him verbal and written orders to cease his construction. 2. Neither can Bugatti claim bad faith on the Baguilats b. the spouses laid down their terms and conditions: the lease would be for 9 years at 500 per month. CA Bugatti approached Sps. but also on the part of the owner of such land. he is their successor in interest. the provisions of article 447 shall apply. Art. he was bound by the judgment because his claim was under that of his parents. What is the definition of bad faith? 1. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder. It is obvious that the essential element of consent was absent. planter or sower proceeded in good faith. planted or sowed on the land of another. Art. not only on the part of the person who built. The determination of Bugatti’s good or bad faith rests on whether there was a valid contract between the parties giving him the right to occupy and build upon the land – there was none. the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. (2) demand the destruction of the building at Bugatti’s expense. There was no meeting of the minds between the parties. Articles 449-451 apply. In a meeting. builds on A’s land. Mojica. Baguilat and inquired into the lease of their land. A being in bad faith. and a building not exceeding 40k would be constructed by Bugatti with the cost of the building offsetting the lease. Art. Art. (d) The river must continue to exist. (b) Cause is the current of the river and not artificial. 2. a. This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. Primarily liable for the cost of the materials. Compel A to purchase the land. 456. What is accretion? Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited. planter or sower. (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake. What is the liability for negligence? The negligent party must pay for the damage done. 3. Spanish Law of Waters applies. b. a. The builder. 2. uses the materials of B. as far as rights between them are concerned. regardless of cost. If the materials. A must reimburse B for the cost of the materials. to build on X’s land. if not. Appropriate the improvement. What are the essential elements of alluvium? [CREIG] (a) The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible (as a process). (c) X is entitled to damages from A and B and may: cmt Page 20 of 42 3/7/2004 . X is NOT subsidiarily liable because B is in bad faith as to him. the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay. IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). In the cases regulated in the preceding articles. c. A. in bad faith. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (b) In case A cannot pay for the materials. Article 461 applies. Not liable if he chooses to compel the builder to purchase the land (this is the right granted by Article 450). a. The owner of the materials. The soil is alluvium. Subsidiarily liable for the cost of the materials. What is alluvium? Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers. and gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters. which gives right to damages under article 2176. or Demolish the structure at A’s expense. 455. c. 3. (e) The increase must be comparatively little and not such that would increase he area of the riparian land by 150%. How many parties are involved in this provision? Three: 1. What are the forms of accretion? 1. b. who is also in bad faith. If the owner of the materials. Allluvium Avulsion Change of course of rivers Formation of islands The landowner. What are their rights and obligations? (a) A and B shall be treated as if they were both in good faith. Must reimburse the builder who has paid for the materials IF he makes use of the materials (appropriates the improvement). the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence. if sea. deposit belongs to the state). plants or seeds has been paid by the builder. plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith.Art. 457. 4. The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the dried up bed as riparian owners. the submerged portion is part of the river bed which. Pascual’s property is bounded on the west by the Bulacan River. with an island formed in the middle. Ronquillo v. its sale is dependent on the Director of Lands. The land sought to be registered as accretion is at the tip of Pascual’s property. ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or private land. What are the reasons why alluvium is granted the riparian owner? [CECEAU] (a) To compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to erosion or the destructive force of the water and danger from floods. the land Manalo claims by accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307. ordered him to vacate the lot. The title of one of the parcels of land indicated that it included a portion which was submerged annually by the Cagayan River during the wet months. the accession being automatically his the moment the soil deposit can be seen. b. the strip of land is denominated as Lots 821 and 822. and on the north by Manila Bay. CA Estero Calubcub changed course due to dumping by the people living alongside it. HELD: The dried up bed was artificially caused. who had a fishpond lease of the foreshore with the Bureau of Lands. Lot 307.It is NOT necessary that: a. it cannot be the subject of a sale. Hence. cmt Page 21 of 42 3/7/2004 . IAC. The riparian owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate. as long as he has already the beneficial or equitable title. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. Heirs of Pascual Pascual sought to have land registered. it may as well be given to the person who can best utilize it. Under Article 502. However. (c) The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the same. the perennially submerged portion causes the river to have two branches. Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by accretion. (d) It cannot be said from whom the soil came. ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by accretion to the perennially submerged portion. the said portion was submerged and was not included in the consolidated title. it cannot come under private ownership. Being of public character. (2) that it be the result of the action of the river. During the wet months. Ronquillo claims the courts have no jurisdiction because the land is public and subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands. on the east by the Talisay River. Applying the rules. Navarro. This submerged potion belongs not to him but to the State. Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960. (b) To compensate him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal easements. Binalay v. opposed Pascual’s registration. However. which he claimed the land was an accretion to his property. when the survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was conducted. is property of public domain. it does not fall under 307/461. the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo. Heirs of Navarro v. HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. under the Civil Code. Manalo Binalay purchased two parcels of land which were later consolidated into one title. immediately after learning of the occupation. it is property of the public domain. The law of waters states that the natural bed of a river is the highest ground covered by its waters during the highest floods. Since the state needs said property for drainage purposes. The riparian owner should make an express act of possession. The rationale if to provide some compensation to the owners because of it subjection to destructive forces and easements. ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrer’s by accretion or Bautista’s by virtue of a free patent. The accretion was a result not of the flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. the land is property of the public domain. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters. HELD: The land is Colegio’s. When the accretion was created. What then is its bed? The law of waters defines the bed as level of the water at the highest ordinary depth. ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascual’s by accretion. Colegio had title to land up to the lakeshore. LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a LAKE. Undeniably. ISSUE: Whether the is Colegio’s or the State’s. fed by floods. Definitions: POND – a body of stagnant water without an outlet. CREEKS. its ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and the Director of Lands had no authority to grant a free patent over it. ordinarily of fresh water. LDB IS A LAKE. Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Navarro. 2 of the 3 requisites are were not met. Art. or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. which is defined as a body of water formed in depressions of the earth. Even if the land was formed by accretion. It is ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers. HELD: The land is Ferrer’s by accretion. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible. THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES. THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE BAY’S BED.During the pendency of the registration case. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. and is not very deep. or springs. and connected to the sea by them. HELD: No. This is clear from the fact that the accretion is at the northern tip of the property. the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the land. In this case. NOT A LAGOON. and its bed is public. Colegio de San Jose The Gov’t and Colegio claim ownership over a parcel of land which is covered by Laguna de Bay during the wet season. cmt Page 22 of 42 3/7/2004 . RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. However. Laguna de Bay is a lake. LAGOON – a small lake. The CA held that the land was Pascual’s by accretion and Navarro should turn over to the latter the portion of the same covered by his foreshore lease. larger than a puddle but smaller than a lake. Bautista Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of accretion. Alluvion gives to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any accretion which is gradually received from the current of the water. Gov’t v. The land is immediately south of Ferrer’s property. Laguna is a lake. The Gov’t also relies on Article 367/458 which provides that the owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters or lose the land inundated in extraordinary floods. (2) that it be the result of the action of the river. This in turn is considered as the level during the dry season. Bautista claims it by virtue of a free patent granted by the Director of Lands. (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. adjacent to Manila Bay. Ferrer v. they still belong to Colegio. or like a body of water with a small outlet. 458. brooks. The State claims the land is part of the lakeshore and of the public domain. ineffective. and may be prejudicial to said title. Alluvium v. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein. d) and may be prejudicial to thte title. extinguished. by reason of any instrument. Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the eastern portion of the river until Agustin drove them out. claim. In her counterclaim. causing the bed to river to revert to its original course. Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation. or barred by prescription. What kinds of actions are referred to in Article 476? 1. c) but is. 2. Remedial. Whenever the current of a river. IAC Agustin owned the property to the east of the Cagayan river. Melad owned the property to the west. Avulsion Alluvium Gradual Soil cannot be identified Belongs to owner of property to which it is attached Avulsion Sudden or abrupt Identifiable Belongs to owner from whose property it was attached What “cloud” is referred to? The cloud (or doubt) on title exists because: a) of an instrument or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding.Art. creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate. the process whereby the current of a river. unenforceable. ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of the river to its original course. Agustin v. she prays that she be declared lawful owner of the property. the owner retains possession. encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid. 459 provides that when land is segregated and transferred to another estate. Faja v. CA Frial claims that Faja had been illegally occupying his titled property for 30 years. This ownership was not lost by the reversion of the river to its original course. void. suddenly and by the perceptible action of the water. the owner of the segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same within 2 years. actually invalid. and Preventative. cutting into Melad’s land. 459. record. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being case upon title to real property or any interest therein. a big flood occurred. more than 10 having passed since the issuance of the decree of registration. He also claims that Faja’s right to question the validity of the title had prescribed. Article 476. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. or unenforceable. b) which is apparently valid or effective. reducing Agustin’s property and increasing Melad’s. 2. ineffective. voidable. the river gradually shifted from west to east. provided that he removes the same within two years. In 1968. HELD: The land is Melad’s. 463 provides that when the current of a river separates a portion of land from an estate. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet such title. which is: 1. This article refers to avulsion. the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it. Melad acquired by accretion the land which was gradually deposited on his property. The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another. Faja claims that Frial never owned the property and his title was obtained through fraud. creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a know portion of land and deposits it on another. Over 49 years. 3/7/2004 cmt Page 23 of 42 . which reversion cut through Melad’s property. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Orais filed an action for reconveyance (quieting of title). When the trustee is in possession of the land sought to be reconveyed. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. praying that the Cabreras be ordered to vacate the property. Thirty years after the issuance of the title. Legal title means registered ownership while equitable title means beneficial ownership. it can connote acquisitive prescription by possession in the concept of owner. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed. Spouses Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. Plaintiffs have been in open and adverse possession of the property since time immemorial. an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible. title to property does not necessarily mena the OCT. Orais claims that the action to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed. It is settled that one who is in actual possession of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right (or to quiet title). ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs have legal or equitable title to the property. more than ten years having elapsed. Orais had the entire property surveyed and registered. leaving 3 children with a parcel of land. Cabrera claims that there is was an implied trust created when Orais acquired the property through fraud. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed. who likewise occupied the lot. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. later selling it to Cabrera. this applies only when the trustee is not in possession of the property. Moson Plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title which was dismissed by the judge who stated that they had no standing to bring such action since they did not have legal or equitable title. J. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. died. conveying the property to Orais. A deed of sale was signed by ony two of the children (Felicidad Teokemian did not sign). Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. CA Teokemian Sr. including the 1/3 share of Felicidad Tokemian. HELD: Plaintiffs have legal and equitable title to the property. The reason being that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title. the right to reconveyance does not prescribe because one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed before taking steps to vindicate his right. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Felicidad Teokemian remained in continuous possession of her 1/3 share. though an action for reconveyance of property based on a constructive trust prescribes ten years from the date of titling of the property. Viuda de Cabrera v. ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to question/quiet title had already prescribed. The prescriptive period began to run against Faja only from the time she was served with the complaint giving her notice that the property she had been occupying was titled in Frial’s name. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land. The reason being that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title. cmt Page 24 of 42 3/7/2004 . However. ISSUE: Whether the right of Cabrera to recover on the implied trust had already prescribed.Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Frial. Mariano v. the latter then sold it to private respondent Laurio. who claimed that they had exclusive ownership of the properties which had already been partitioned. there was only ideal partition as to the share of each co-owner. Amparo then sold the lot to Mariano. Some of the other heirs assigned their right to redeem in favor of Amparo. Donato’s sale of the property to his daughter was inofficious as far as the other half belonging to his brother was concerned. Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent. an action for partition was brought by successors in interest of the original coowners. HELD: There was no physical partition. CA Donato and his brother inherited property from their mother. In this case. He cannot claim ordinary acquisitive prescription because he sold the property and yet altered the boundary line – obvious bad faith. Donato’s daughter claims exclusive ownership by virtue of the 2 sales and prescription. The heirs of his brother filed a complaint to partition the property plus damages. continued cultivating and tilling the land already sold and had been doing so for 20 years. The Civil Code provides that such action is availing only when there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument. Amparo. ISSUE: Whether an the island property had already been partitioned by virtue of the agreements entered into by the co-owners. she became sole owner? No. this was opposed by the successors of the other co-owners. Titong. others did not (Grace). none of the causes were present. ISSUE: Whether Fanesa is sole owner of the property. HELD: Yes. Redemption is not a mode of terminating ownership. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. The property was levied by the government for tax delinquency and was redeemed by Fanesa. He left several heirs but only one. redeemed the property. Paulmitan v. an action for partition does not prescribe. Fanesa. she filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages against Mariano. Partition requires a subdivision plain with respective titles issued to each. CA Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa. Fanesa has a lien over the property and is entitled to reimbursement. Titong has no right over the property. He later sold the property to his daughter. When Grace learned of the sale. can it be said that when Fanesa redeemed the entire property from the State. CA Gosiengfao mortgaged the lot in question. Del Banco v. he died and then the mortgage was foreclosed. there is no proof of partition. The true issue is a boundary dispute. Several agreements were later executed as to the extent of ownership of each. when Laurio entered the property and attempted to till it himself. ISSUE: Whether Grace has a right to the property. the only possible action would have been forcible entry. HELD: No. claiming he was the only surviving heir. simple agreement is insufficient. ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title was proper. possession being less than 30 years. Titong filed an action for quieting of title. however. claim. Donato caused the property to be registered in his name. However. whether Titong has a right to the property. Also. That the parties have been in possession of portions of the lot and have even acquired titles thereto. encumbrance or proceeding. Later. The redemption by one co-owner of the entire property does not vest title over the same. IAC Brothers Pansacol purchased an island in Tayabas as co-owners. cmt Page 25 of 42 3/7/2004 . record.Titong v. HELD: An action for quieting of title was improper. the evidence is clear and conclusive. claiming Adille was only a trustee. Description of the land Description of the building Description of the common areas Statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired by the purchaser in the unit Statement of the purposes for which the building and units will be used Certificate of the registered owner of the property. no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino citizens or corporations. upon registration instrument executed by registered owners. 7. the incidents of a condo grant are as follows: 1. Any transfer of a unit shall include the transfer of the undivided interest in the common areas or the membership in the corporation PROVIDED. commercial. Moreover. except in cases of succession. Condominium act applies only if the master or enabling deed is registered in the registry of property and annotated on the certificate/s of title of the land if such was registered under the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts. 4. windows. In fact. the co-owners were kept in the dark regarding the titling in his name. (c) It may include. The boundary are the interior surfaces of the walls.Adille v. Adille was able to redeem the property and executed a deed of partition representing himself to be the sole heir of Felisa thereby allowing him to title the land in his name. Prescription shall begin from the moment that the Asejos learned of the fraud. then died. revoked. CA Felisa. 2. 4. floors. Felisa sold the property. such act is made known to the co-owners. in the land on which it is located and other common areas of the building. 3. HELD: Yes. ceilings. and 3/7/2004 CONDOMINIUM ACT What is a condominium? It is an interest in real property consisting of: cmt Page 26 of 42 . where the common areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners. Sec. Unless otherwise provided in the master deed. has prescription set in? No. co-owner repudiated co-ownership. 3. (a) a separate interest in a unit in a residential. Twenty five years have passed since he had the land titled in his name. It is settled that redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all other coowners. 5. a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of the building 5. he has been in possession in concept of owner for the required period. 2. 8. ISSUE: Whether the Asejos have a right to the property. Redemption is a necessary expense and the Civil Code provides that each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation. in addition. Prescription as a means of terminating coownership must be preceded by repudiation. Sec. 6. and (b) an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly. The master deed shall contain the following: 1. 6. Sec. an Asejo had all the while been occupying a portion of the property. In this case. the original owner of the property had children by two marriages: Adille from the first and the Asejos from the second. The Asejos filed for partition with accounting. Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law on the right of the condominium owner to dispose of his condominium. if he is other than those executing the master deed The following plans: a. Adille is then a trustee who acquired the property through fraud. one Asejo continued to enjoy possession of a portion of the property. Master deed may be amended. 4. pacto de retro. which is subject to the following conditions: 1. or industrial building. annotation because you are a stockholder of the corporation. 3. 2. pledge. Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price. no more cmt Page 27 of 42 3/7/2004 . 1 vote per unit. the condominium corporation.door. the private respondents were holders of separate interests and consequently shareholders of the Sunset View. heating. etc. Declaration of Restrictions must also be registered. lien by corporation on units. 7. etc. The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the Condominium Act. No pay of dues. Existence of condominium corporation coterminous with the building. 5. the Master Deed provides that ownership is transferred only upon full payment of the purchase price. HELD: The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction. 4. if there is no condo corp. If corporation – yes provided Filipino interest remains 60% or more. special courts handle intra-corporate disputes What is a condominium? What is a separate interest in a unit? Interest in common in land and common areas? Can you sell unit but retain common areas? NO Directly or indirectly? Direct – each unit owner own common area. The private respondents interposed the objection that the City Court and CFI have no jurisdiction. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its grievance with the SEC. If you own condo unit where there is no condo corporation. indirect – stockholder corporation owns What is a condominium corporation? Manages land. uninhabitable. Sunset View Condominium Corp. hence they are not shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction over the claims. The private respondents are not members or shareholders in the condominium corporation. Check out differences between regular corporation and condo Purpose – hold title over land and common areas Existence – 50 yrs Dissolution – ordinary may be voluntarily dissolved. land is in name of corp. ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the claims filed by Sunset View. Campos Sunset View filed for the collection of assessments levied against private respondents herein. right to sell unless master deed requires offer to condominium owner. common areas and to hold indirect interest in the land and common areas. which has exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising between shareholders of a corporation. Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. conduits. 6. you are given a title (condo cert of title) but no title to the land. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of the unit Unless otherwise provided. Whenever you buy a unit. can you sell you unit to the foreigner? NO. In this case. common areas held in common by unit owners – equal share for one unit easement for ingress egress per unit right to paint fix interior right to mortgage. The sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of title. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. I fthere is a condo corp. condo – subject to conditions provided by law: project destroyed. v. *now. Not included are utilities. The Condominium Act leaves to the Master Deed the determination of when the shareholding in the corporation will be transferred to the purchaser of the unit. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. What are examples of an alteration? 1. even though benefits for all would result therefrom. GOAL offered units for sale. Or the lease is for more than one year (whether recorded or not) 2. which may be material (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes use). A voluntary easement. Furthermore. Article 491. However. without the consent of the others. Sale. (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT. None of the co-owners shall. Any other act of strict dominion or ownership where any encumbrance or disposition was held implicitly to be an act of alteration. *What is an alteration? (1) It is a CHANGE. ISSUE: Whether the developer. In fact. Sale. GOAL. (3) And changes the USE of the thing. donation. if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest. 4. Construction began but the contractor abandoned the project when it was only 60% completed. v. 5. unit owners have an undivided interest over common areas and facilities. or mortgage of the whole property (the transaction would be void only to the extent of the co-owner who did not consent). Lease of real property if a. including parking spaces. The construction of a house on a lot owned in common. (3)Only street parking is excluded from what should be given for free by the developer. PD 957 provides: (1)No developer can alter plans without the permission of the HLURB and the written conformity of the homeowners. b. contracts of long duration. the developer must redeem the mortgaged and deliver certificate/s of title to the buyer. according to Manresa: It is an act of ownership. title must be transferred. The lease is registered. 3. in a condominium. private respondents were purchasers who had fully paid for the units. despite a mortgage constituted by the developer. CA NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to construct a condominium.L. Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. upon full payment of the purchase price. the developer must provide parking. (3) to provide adequate parking spaces.O. 6. cmt Page 28 of 42 3/7/2004 . Impliedly. even if the unit is mortgaged by the developer. (2)Upon full payment of the purchase price. the developer is mandated by law to deliver the certificate/s of title to the buyers. GOAL obtained an additional loan from NHA to continue construction with a condition imposed by the latter for the former to hold on to the certificate/s of title. Or. (4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by others. When is an alteration deemed illegal? An alteration is deemed illegal when it is made without the express or implied consent of the co-owners. and gives rise to a real right over the property owned in common. This is an amendment of the master deed. the courts may afford adequate relief.A. can be compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction. G.No alterations may be made without the written consent of the homeowners. Free parking may be in the basement or on the first floor. HELD: Yes. (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. donation or mortgage of part of the property with definite boundaries (the sale is valid but subject to the result of the subsequent partition). The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the respondents. make alterations in the thing owned in common. (2) to deliver private respondent Teng’s certificate/s of title. 7. A year after the abandonment by the contractor. The co-owner responsible may lose what he has spent. 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. shall order such measures as it may deem proper. do not bind the co-ownership for a long time in the future. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision. C later sold his share to Si. ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right of redemption. at the instance of an interested party. 5. In this case. HELD: No. and S. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common. the certificate of title of the original lot remained intact. he is deemed to have waived his right to 1091. that is. do not affect the substance or nature of the thing. 2. Imperial v. 4. received from their parents property in Pasay. J and S sought to annul the sale. A executed a waiver of rights in favor of Mariano.Note that implied consent by the others will not give the one making the alteration the right to seek reimbursement. CA Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited 2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. it is evident that the deeds of sale to each son particularly identified the conveyed portion of the master lot. another document was executed where Mariano acknowledged the simulated character of the waiver and Adela’s ½ share in the inheritance. Should there be no majority. In case a house is constructed on a common lot. However. He would be liable for losses and damages. The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed to give the heirs of A their share in the proceeds. Fraudulently. and the remainder is owned in common. Damages were also awarded. (c) those that have transitory effects. Imperial effectively partitioned the property. What are acts of administration of management? They are those: (a) that do not involve an alteration. C. What are the effects of an illegal alteration? 1. the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. Si v. or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common. To facilitate titling of the lots. The co-ownership has already been terminated. all the co-owners will be entitled to a proportionate share of the rent. (e) those for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not for only one or some of them. the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common. 3. Demolition can be compelled. J. There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. Article 484 provides that there is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. including the appointment of an administrator. Article 492. the court. (b) those that may be renewed from time to time. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners. M sold 1052 to a third person/s. (d) those that do not give rise to a real right over the thing owned in common. claiming they had a right of redemption. Benefits derived by the co-ownership belong to it. those. CA The Armada siblings. How can we tell if the act is alteration or administration? cmt Page 29 of 42 3/7/2004 . The deeds of sale particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in metes and bounds. which even if called an alteration. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage. Nevertheless. (b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty of meeting would justify proceeding without notice. however. the use of the building would change and the interests of the others would be jeopardized. If. after the share is sold. then he alone may participate. can one of them sell his share to a third person/s who will convert the same into a factory? No. The majority refuses to correct abuse of administration or maladministration. “Personal right. ii. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time. can one of them sell his share to a stranger? No.” as it is used in Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a technical term. *What is the reason for allowing partition at ANY TIME? The law discourages co-ownership because to remain in such an arrangement subjects a person to the desires of the rest and conflicts in management are bound to arise. An alteration is agreed upon. b. The sale is valid only insofar as his share is concerned. What are the limitations on the right of the financial majority? (a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of resolutions. with respect to the co-owners. assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. What is the effect of a co-owner’s sale of the entire property without authority of the others? cmt Page 30 of 42 . and he may therefore alienate. If the vendee is already in possession. shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. e. shall be valid. 3/7/2004 iii. (b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third person as administrator. If A and B own a common dwelling. Loans without sufficient security. Article 493. In this case. The resolution is SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL to the rights of an individual co-owner. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. each owning a floor. insofar as his share is concerned. This term may be extended by a new agreement. Encumbrance or disposition is made (alteration). not exceeding ten years. If A. both he and the vendee may participate. if unregistered. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. who participates in the partition. except when personal rights are involved. d. 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.What are examples of acts of administration? (a) Lease of one year or less. Each coowner may demand at ANY TIME the partition of the thing owned in common. c. i. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. Abusive administrator is not replaced. There is no real majority. Article 494. Can a co-owner’s share be attached even if there hasn’t been partition? Yes. The minority is made victim of fraud. The interest and privacy of the other would be jeopardized. In case a co-owner sells his share. the vendor retains a real right over it. (c) The minority may appeal to the court against the majority decision when: a. B and C are co-owners of a residence. the heirs of the excluded siblings brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for the partition or reconveyance of the property. Repudiation with notice Must be in a clear and convincing manner Other requirements of prescription Period of prescription In 1953. and Vicente inherited a parcel of land from their brother. One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. a co-owner in possession of the coowned property is deemed an implied trustee and possession adverse to the implied trust is recognized as a repudiation of the coownership. can cause prescription to run. Registration of the co-owned property by a co-owner is an act of repudiation and is a constructive trust wherein the action to assail must be brought within 10 years of registration. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold. However. if proved convincingly. she raised the issue of: ISSUE: Whether the terms of the contract requiring co-ownership until the sale of all the lots is contrary to the Civil Code provision Is a tax declaration in one’s name repudiation? It is not sufficient notice of repudiation. What if all donees agree to partition then donor challenges partition? The donation may be revoked due to a violation of a condition imposed by the donor.). An action to reconvey land based on an implied trust prescribes after 10 years – the action was brought 15 years after the registration. Requirements a. partition is prohibited (10 years max. What about administrator? (c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG). A contract providing for the nondissolution of the co-ownership until the subdivided lots are sold is valid. both assented. Juanita. Inc. When Galileo registered the property in his name. Tuason v. Galileo caused the property to be registered in his name alone. as long as the one possessing recognizes the co-ownership. d.*When may a co-owner NOT successfully demand partition? (a) if by agreement. c. GA then proposed to the remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public. (d) if physical partition would render the property unserviceable (the property may be allotted to one who will indemnify the others or it may be sold to a third person/s). One of the three Tuason siblings sold her share to GA. ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded siblings have a right of action against the heirs of Galileo. prescription does not run against co-owners. HELD: No. Tuason. What if heirs violate partition prohibition of testator? No one can bring an action to challenge partition. Generally. (b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or testator (20 years max. This repudiation. In her appeal. b. the action has already prescribed. Si v. (e) if the legal nature of the common property does not allow partition (like party walls). Gregorio Araneta. Is registration of property in one’s name repudiation? Yes. this is deemed to be a repudiation sufficient to cause the running of prescription. registration is sufficient repudiation. cmt Page 31 of 42 3/7/2004 . Eulalio. if made unequivocally and with knowledge to the co-owners. In 1968. CA Siblings Galileo. The lower court dismissed the complaint.). The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable. real property personal property As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1. the co-ownership subsists. Santos v. When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition. parcels of land. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the coownership. Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article. Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao. The Civil Code Suppletorily. ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action. b. and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants. already 97. brothers. Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494? No. Article 495. provisional or temporary permanent As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. inherited from their sister and father. The contract is. by agreeing to subdivide. son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators. Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a Combined Deed of Partition whereby the latter conveyed the entire property to the former. and sell the property. 2. 4. partition by judicial decree partition registered in the Registry of Property partition in a private instrument partition in a public instrument oral partition What law governs partition? a. the Rules of Court. Article 496. The issue more important is prescription: Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share through prescription? No. the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition. this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the cmt 2. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. there was no such repudiation. when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. The co-owners being forced to remain in the co-ownership should be taken to be a means to an end of disposing the lots and terminating the co-ownership. the coowners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in common. HELD: Yes. develop. and for a handsome profit as well.5% of the subdivision had been sold. What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate. Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. the (2) nature and extent of his title. As to PERMANENCE: 1. At the time of the appeal. In this case. 2. extrajudicial or conventional judicial Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners. in fact.prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community. What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition? 3/7/2004 Page 32 of 42 . 3. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. Santos Eliseo and Ladislao Santos. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. 5. HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. Leis Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court. they became owners of one half of the property. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral. and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares. HELD: Yes. Concepcion. the oral partition shall be given effect. Cruz v. ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid. the mortgage was valid.It shall order partition of the property. They asked petitioner to leave the property. To set things straight. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid. CA Ramon Chavez died. Concepcion. Concepcion. his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. this was secured by a REM on the subject property. Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal. in this case. Partition may be oral or written. the father of petitioner herein. Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal. Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title. Angel. 5872 was not included in the court’s order approving the partition. it became hers alone. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage. Petitioners. Being so. and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition. Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition. Though as a rule. commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property. including the property in dispute. the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed. leaving several heirs. What if the parties fail to agree on the partition? The court will appoint not more than 3 disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition. in a private or public document. cmt Page 33 of 42 3/7/2004 . Pada Kilario v. Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots. An action for ejectment was filed. Amparo. However. CA. to occupy a portion of his property. Where a co-owned property is titled in the name of one co-owner and there is no indication on the certificate/s of title of co-ownership. Amparo. the partition is valid. and Salvador received lot 3046. Subsequently. Angel. lot 5872. the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name. Maestrado v. having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed. the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property. HELD: Yes. a third person may rely on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property. The parties may partition the property among themselves. she refused. Angel. When Jacinto died. upon the death of their father. Petitioner claims that the partition was invalid for being in a private document and that the portion she is occupying was subsequently donated to her by a number of the heirs of Jacinto. a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership. Since the partition was valid. he allowed his brother. Amparo. Pada During Jacinto’s lifetime. servitude. who participates in the partition. mutual accounting for benefits received. Article 499. or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it. Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud? Yes. after the share is sold. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force. 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. the vendor retains a real right over it. who shall indemnify the others. Angel. Article 501. Likewise. 3. Who are the creditors referred to in this article? All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership. Concepcion. such as automobiles. B. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not prejudice third persons. Article 497. Who are third person/s in this article? All those who did not participate in the partition. there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. mortgage the same to X and then subsequently partition it. Every co-owner shall. Of course. the vendor or the vendee? It depends. each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. If A. 2. and Salvador (or their successors). If. without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. essentially indivisible objects. Allot the thing to a co-owner. However. be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the co-owners. and C. indemnity for damages caused by negligence or fraud. except: 1. as co-owners of a lot. If the vendee is already in possession. If the above is not agreed upon. reciprocal warranty for: a. unless there has been fraud. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed. both he and the vendee may participate. such as land. may also be covered if their division would be to the prejudice of the interests of the parties. Where there has been fraud. what happens to the mortgage? The mortgage would subsist over the 3 postpartition lots. 4. In case a co-owner sells his share. defects of title 3/7/2004 Article 498. Where a formal opposition has been previously presented. Amparo. 2. however. have a right to the property. *What are the effects of partition? 1. essentially divisible objects. Article 500. HELD: They have no right. notwithstanding the partition. then he alone may participate. What objects are included in this article? cmt Page 34 of 42 . What is the procedure in the partition of an essentially indivisible object? 1. after partition. 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. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed? Generally they may NOT. sell the thing and distribute the proceeds. or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. mutual reimbursement for expenses.ISSUE: Whether private respondents. The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims. Upon partition. 2. who shall retain the rights of mortgage. making it also a right. *What are the degrees of possession? cmt Article 524. 2. (b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess. I own a house. What are the viewpoints of possession? 1. There is a large tract of land. What are the classes of possession? (a) In one’s own name or that of another (Article 524). It is a fact since it exists. but from the moment it exists. (c) In good or bad faith. 6.b. detention or control of a thing or a right. prescription by co-owner. 5. I am renting a house. Ex. the right to possess the same may be in the hands of another as a tenant or lessee. (a) Grammatical – mere holding without having any right (thief) (b) Juridical – possession with juridical title but not ownership (lessee. pledge) (c) Real – possession with just title but not from the true owner (purchase of property not owned by seller in good faith (d) Dominium – possession with a title of dominium or a just title from the owner *What are the requisites or elements of possession? (a) There must be a holding. 7. (b) In the concept of owner and in the concept of holder(Article 525). How is co-ownership extinguished? 1. actual or constructive. Why entire property to possession? Possessor may not be owner. Jus possesionis or right OF possession – this is a right independent of ownership. I am entitled to possess it. X successfully claims ownership of the land allotted to A. 3. judicial partition. Are ownership and possession the same? No. quality or hidden defects each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to him for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted. B must give half of the land allotted to him to A. Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another. prescription by stranger. Ownership is different from possession. 6. Though one owns property. If A and B partitioned land co-owned by them and later. 5. 2. Page 35 of 42 3/7/2004 . loss or destruction. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of land? The lessor. through the tenant. POSSESSION Article 523. certain consequences follow. Possession here is separate from ownership. expropriation. Jus possidendi or right TO possession – this is an incident of ownership. I am entitled to possess it. depositary. Is possession a fact or a right? Both. (c) The possession must be by virtue of one’s own right (real or dominium. Ex. this is a state of mind (animus possidendi). not possession because of agency) What does actual or constructive holding or detention mean? Ex. is in actual possession in the concept of owner. extrajudicial partition. of which the owner actually occupies only a fraction and constructively occupies the rest. what happens? A and B must both bear the loss. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. 4. It is essential in constructive possession that the property be not in the adverse possession of another. partition confers upon each the exclusive title over his respective share. merger in one co-owner. getting boarders. possession may be exercised in another’s name. cmt Page 36 of 42 3/7/2004 . 2. Article 526. Possession may be exercised in another’s name. HELD: Yes. or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it. the ownership pertaining to another person. the court felt the need to look into the issue of ownership. Article 525. However.” De Luna v. Dimaano attempted to prove Dequiña’s ownership through tax declarations by the latter on the property but the court held that this alone was not sufficient to prove ownership. Now. The court held that the prior possession of De Luna beats the flimsy claim of Dimaano without prejudice to the subsequent determination of true ownership in an appropriate proceeding. CA De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Dimaano. since Dimaano alleged that Dequiña.The lessee is in actual possession in the concept of holder. and not De Luna. and acts as if he is the owner. Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third person. De Luna also proved through a neighbor’s testimony that Dequiña’s father delivered the property to him and his mother. (c) Unauthorized – this will become the principal’s possession only after there has been a ratification without prejudice to the effects of negotiorum gestio (officious management). 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. owned the property. Paying taxes. (b) Necessary – as when a mother possesses for a child still in her womb. ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised in another’s name. whether in good or bad faith. What are the kinds of possession in another’s name? (a) Voluntary – as when the agent possesses for the principal by virtue of agreement. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner. De Luna was able to prove prior possession through the testimony of his tenants who had been occupying the land for several years – this is the possession exercised by De Luna in another’s name. In the concept of owner – one who. and erected a barbed wire fence. then he may recover possession from Dimaano. What is the importance of this classification? If in concept of holder. must act and claim to be owner. began plowing it. if De Luna is able to prove prior possession in himself. the owner benefits from your possession. The landlord was in actual possession through the tenant and stands to lose possession and even ownership.Your own and others. He further claims that Dequiña leased the property to him. alleging that the latter entered his land. Whose concept? Owner . the possessor may get the property through acquisitive prescription. Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was not the owner of the property and that the property was actually owned by Dequiña. What are the two concepts of possession? 1. can the OWNER of the property bring an action for forcible entry? Yes. In the concept of holder – one who recognizes another to be the owner. If in the concept of owner. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: “Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or that of another.” The issue of prior possession had to be resolved to determine who had a better right to possess the property – the rule in ejectment cases being that the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises or de facto possession. claims to be. a corresponding certificate/s of title was issued. Subsequently. Besides. cmt Page 37 of 42 . you have to look beyond the title. 102 SCRA 331. The person here is not an owner – there is a flaw or defect. and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. Good faith is always presumed. HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith. It has been held by the SC that a holder of a title is in good faith until such title is declared null and void by the court. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of others should. Is bad faith transmissible to successors in interest? Not necessarily. A child or heir may be presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding the father’s bad faith. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. he filed a complaint for the recovery of possession against them and won. In this case. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith. Though he was a townmate of the Carreon’s. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Carreon’s children filed a complaint against Agcaoili to have the deed of sale declared as a mortgage and to recover ½ of the property – their action was predicated on Agcaoili’s bad faith. everyone should be presumed honest until proven otherwise. at least. Both Ramos’s applications were granted and he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela land as REM. CA. Carreon v. Ramos went to Isabela and found a piece of land covered by a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly abandoned by the latter. Ramos filed another application over this land. Republic v. Buys the property from the widow of a deceased person. What is the reason for presuming good faith? Presumption of innocence. These 3/7/2004 Article 527. there was no showing of bad faith on Agcaoili’s part. The land was later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title was issued in his name. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. Ramos discovered that there were people occupying his Isabela land. Pending this application. he cannot be expected to know that his vendor had children. did not know she had children GF Buys land with Torrens but title is annotated lis pendens BF If you are in the business of lending money. the property was titled and the buyer had no responsibility to look beyond the title: which had an expired lien that was of no consequence to the purchase. L-42856. Ramos filed a Homestead application for land in Nueva Ecija. Agcaoili Carreon claimed that property inherited from her husband was hers along. What kind of mistake may be the basis of good faith? It must be a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. Can a person in possession of a valid Torrens title be in bad faith? No.He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. What is the importance of distinguishing gf and bf? Prescription Indemnity Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the person on the title GF. ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act issues. in a public document. Article 529.M. brought an action for ejectment against Munar. ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the improvements constructed. the improvements on the property in dispute to Rodriguez. make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. the mother of the plaintiffs herein. the owner of a subdivision. HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith. the REM is valid as between Ramos and PNB. whether PNB. Munar claims possession in good faith and raises the defense that Tuason’s certificate/s of title. There is presumptive knowledge of the existence of a Torrens Title. if the person does not investigate and he is later defeated. desiring to apply for patents on the same land.M. Receipt of a letter demanding vacation of the property. ISSUE: Whether Munar can assail Tuason’s decree of registration and corresponding certificate/s of title 20 years after its issuance and whether Munar was a possessor in good faith. in accepting the REM of the Isabela property was in bad faith. HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title 20 years after its registration. The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the property from Rodriguez. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. he also introduced signifact improvements. Examples of when bad faith begins: 1. HELD: PNB was in bad faith. He is in bad faith because there is presumptive knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s of title to Tuason. was void due to fraud and that pursuant to a compromise agreement between Tuason and Deudor (Munar’s predecessor in interest). 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. Munar had a right to occupy the property. It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the contrary is proved. Article 528. PNB cannot be considered as a good faith mortgagor as against such possessors. which was issued more than 20 years before. provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. However. since Ramos’s title over the land is valid. the parties entered into a verbal agreement whereby Rodriguez would condone interest but take possession of the land and enjoy the fruits. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. Rodriguez Ambrosia. Munar J. Tuason v. the land was acquired by Ambrosia as a homestead and could not be subject to a real encumbrance. Receipt of judicial summons. at least. He is entitled to indemnity. However. Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s of title and relied on his predecessor’s claim of ownership. Because of her failure to pay interests when due. can be the basis of good faith. What are the presumptions regarding possession? cmt Page 38 of 42 3/7/2004 . as a contract of antichresis is. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law. mortgaged. One who purchases/accepts for REM real property which is in the actual possession of others should. can be the basis of good faith. 2.people sent a petition to the SANR and alleged the nullity of Ramos’s second Homestead application. Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected to know the various intricacies of a contract of antichresis. In the absence of such an inquiry. J. Tuason. Kasilag v. donation. by his legal representative. but in the last case. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it. which presupposes prior ownership in another. Constitutom possesorium (possessed as owner. How is possession acquired from the viewpoint of who possesses and what are the essential requisites for each? (a) Personal. It can be acquired through occupation. Article 532. Tradition longa manu (delivery by consent) (d) Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities – succession. How is possession acquired? (a) Material occupation or detention a. (b) Exercise of a right (c) Subjection to our will – by mere agreement or the delivery of keys a. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. (a) Intent to possess (b) Capacity to possess (c) Object must be capable of possession. (d) Intent to possess for a principal (e) Capacity to possess for another (f) Principal has intent and capacity to possess (c) Through an unauthorized person upon ratification (negotiorum gestio). (c) Non-interruption of possession. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. or by any person without any power whatever. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right.(a) Good faith is presumed. What is res nullius and can it be possessed? It is abandoned or ownerless property. by his agent. (h) Exclusive possession of common property. Article 531. It may be possessed but it cannot be acquired through prescription. now possesses as owner) b. What are the essential requirements for possession? (a) corpus – the thing physically detained. Article 530. (b) Continuity of character of possession. (f) Possession during intervening period. execution of public instruments. there is constructive possession of the entire parcel. (b) Through an authorized person. (g) Intent to possess for another (h) Capacity of principal to possess (i) Ratification by principal (retroactive) What is negotiorum gestio? It is the voluntary taking charge of another’s business or property without any power from the owner when the property or business is neglected or abandoned. now juridical possession) Tradition brevi manu (juridical possession. Can land adversely occupied by one be contstructively possessed by another? No. the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same. (d) Presumption of just title. court order) cmt Page 39 of 42 3/7/2004 . or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. without prejudice to the consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. (g) Possession of movable with real property. (e) Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally recovered. unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed by another. (b) animus – intent to possess (express/implied). Article 534. must invoke the aid of the competent court. Day 1: A sold his share to X. b. no. in case the inheritance is accepted. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing. Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. son accepts on January 30. but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen. Tolerance – possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit. or donation. When does the heir acquire possession of the inherited property? 1. consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent. succession. Article 535.Article 533. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J. do not affect possession. and C inherited. if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. and those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing. Article 536. Who is in possession of the property from Jan. in equal parts. JPSP. the possession of the deceased is tacked to the possession of the heir. Day 3: Partition is made. This is because B is deemed never to have inherited. or by violence. if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it. secret possession. How much does X get? X gets ½ of the property. c. What type of acquisition of possession is referred to in this article? This article refers to acquisition of possession only in those matters where the incapacitated person has capacity to act such as occupation of res nullius. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated to inherit – he is deemed never to have possessed. Reason for the rule? Practicality – candy example. Clandestine. Importance is for acquisitive prescription. yes. an administrator manages and is in possession of the property. his legal representatives must intervene. If the heir accepts – from the moment of death. B. this was really A’s share upon the death of the father. Article 537. who possessed it in the concept of holder. since there is no interruption. What happens if the son enters the property before acceptance? The administrator may file a complaint for forcible entry against him. What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired? a. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. in the meantime. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption an from the moment of the death of the decedent. but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent. prescription. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the cmt Page 40 of 42 3/7/2004 . Minors and incapacitated person may acquire the possession of things. Problem: A. Force or Intimidation. Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. 1-30? The son is in actual possession in the concept of owner through the admininstrator. Who may institute an action for forcible entry against an intruder? Either the son or the administrator. but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor.H. a parcel of land. Problem: Father dies on January 1. 2. Acts merely tolerated. (b) If both are present. is still the possessor and is: a. provided it was acquired in good faith b. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation? In this case. Mercado visited the property periodically. even if ousted. (b) possession in different concepts or degrees – both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time. Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one? No. (b) The legal possessor. the one longer in possession. and if all these conditions are equal. The exceptions are: cmt (b) immovable property a. property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession? (a) The present possessor shall be preferred. they are co-owners. Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. c. the person who presents to oldest title. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession. the person who first possessed in good faith if there was no possession. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. if the dates of the possession are the same. Page 41 of 42 3/7/2004 . You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard – clandestine. Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. Entitled to the benefits of prescription. the one who presents a title. (c) If the dates of possession are the same. b. structures. Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land – tolerance. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings. What is the general rule regarding possession as a fact and what are the exceptions? The general rule is that possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities. Article 538. one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder. or anything to indicate actual possession. the one who presents a title. (a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of interest. (d) If all conditions are equal. the one longer in possession. He did not put up any signs. the present possessor shall be preferred. the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. Carpio Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. preference of ownership (not possession) is determined: (a) movable property a. Wong v. Entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession. c. Entitled to the fruits.What does it mean that the “acts…do not affect possession?” (a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property if there was no registration. and made copra. Compare to rule on double sale. preference to he who first possessed in good faith (c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription. harvested coconuts. if there are two possessors. unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of action in the case for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property. HELD: Yes. Despite his initial elation. Mercado learned that the former’s laborers built a hut were occupying the land. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will. is better than Bishop’s.” Also. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force. invoking their rights as registered owners of the land. strategy. Applying the aforementioned doctrines. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property. Salang’s title to the land is based on an OCT which was issued 82 years ago. HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action. CA Salang filed an action for recovery of possession against Bishop. the application was granted and title was issued. in this case. Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title. or stealth. Vda. he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title. She has no right to seek its reconveyance or continue in its possession. intimidation. Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. she is a mere squatter with the tolerance of Francisco. It was necessary to determine ownership in order to resolve the case for recovery of possession. private respondent herein. even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession. the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied. HELD: Salang has a better right. An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land. Bishop raised the defense that the land was part of the public domain and could not have been registered. Mercado had possession. It seems that. Bishop v. She never acquired a right over the lot in question. It is now incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. in relation to Article 531. the execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. CA Diaz applied for the lot in question with the PHHC.Several years after the sale. Wong must remove himself from the property. Giger. Mercado was pleased. cmt Page 42 of 42 3/7/2004 . Catchuela had been occupying said property for several years when Francisco filed an action for ejectment. He then sold the property to Francisco. de Catchuela v. A few months after the sale to Wong. the rightful owner. Obiters: The SC also said that entry into the property by force. Since prior possession of Mercado was proved. from the time of service of summons. based on a certificate/s of title. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela has no cause of action. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that “possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. Wong raises the defense that Mercado has not established prior possession and that his acts of gathering coconuts and making copra were only tolerated by the true owner.