ust golden notes 2011 - property and prescription

8/20/2019 UST Golden Notes 2011 - Property and Prescription

1/84

PROPERTY

PROPERTY

89U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S

F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o i v i l

ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II

VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA

VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE

VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ

I. CHARACTERISTICS

Q: What is property?

A: It is an object or a right which is appropriated

or

susceptible

of

appropriation

by

man,

with

capacity to satisfy human wants and needs

(Pineda Property, p. 1, 1999 Ed )

Q: What are the requisites for a thing to be

considered as property?

A: USA

1. U tility – capability to satisfy a human

need

2. Substantivity/Individuality –

independent existence

3. A ppropriability – susceptibility to

ownership/possession, even if not yet

actually appropriated

Q: What properties are not susceptible of

appropriation?

A:

1. Common things (res commones)

XPN: Those that may be appropriated

under certain conditions in a limited way.

e.g. Electricity

2. Not susceptible due to physical

impossibility

e.g. Sun

3. Not susceptible due to legal impossibility

e.g. Human body

II. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

Q: What are the classifications of property?

A:

1. As to mobility

a.

Immovable

or

real

property

b. Movable or personal property

2. As to ownership

a. Public dominion

b. Private ownership

3. As to alienability

a. Alienable

b. Inalienable

4. As to individuality

a. Specific property

b. Generic property

5. As to susceptibility to touch

a. Tangible

b. Intangible

6. As to susceptibility to substitution

a. Fungible

b. Non fungible

7. As to accession

a. Principal

b. Accessory

A. HIDDEN TREASURE

Q: What is the concept of hidden treasure?

A: HUM

1. Hidden and unknown

2. Unknown owner

3. Consists of Money, jewels, or other

precious objects. (Not raw materials)

Q: What is the meaning of “other precious

objects”?

A: Under the ejusdem generis rule, the phrase

should be understood as being similar to money

or jewelry.

Q: Is

oil

or

gold

considered

as

hidden

treasure?

A: No, these are natural resources.

Q: What is the rule regarding discovery of hidden

treasure?

A:

GR: If the finder is the owner of the land,

building, or other property where it is found,

the entire hidden treasure belongs to him.

XPN: If the finder is not the owner or is a

stranger (includes the lessee or

usufructuary), he is entitled to ½ thereof.

( Art 566,

NCC)

Q: What is the effect if the finder is married?

A: If the finder is married he or she gets one half

of the treasure or its value his or her spouse is

entitled to share one‐half of that share it being a

conjugal property. (Art. 117, par. 4, FC)


2/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

Q: When is the finder entitled to any share in the

hidden treasure?

A: Requisites: ACTA

1. Discovery was made on the property of

Another, or of the State or any of its

political subdivisions;

2. Made by Chance; and

3. He is not a Trespasser or Agent of the

landowner. (Art. 438 par. 2, NCC)

Note: If the things found be of interest to science or

the arts, the State may acquire them at their just

price, which shall be divided in conformity with the

rule stated. ( Art. 438, NCC )

Q: What is the meaning of ‘By Chance”?

A: The finder had no intention to search for the

treasure. There is no agreement between the

owner

of

the

property

and

the

finder

for

the

search of the treasure. (Pineda Property, p. 86,

1999 ed)

Q: Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by

Blas to construct a house on a lot which he (Blas)

owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay

down the foundation of the house, Adam hit a

very hard object. It turned out to be the vault of

the old Banco de las Islas Filipinas. Using a

detonation device, Adam was able to open the

vault containing old notes and coins which were

in circulation during the Spanish era. While the

notes and coins are no longer legal tender, they

were

valued

at

P

100

million

because

of

their

historical value and the coins’ silver and nickel

content. The following filed legal claims over the

notes and coins:

i)

Adam, as finder;

ii)

Blas, as owner of the property where

they were found;

iii)

Bank of the Philippine Islands, as

successor‐in‐interest of the owner of

the vault; and

iv)

The Philippine Government because of

their historical value.

Q: Who owns the notes and coins?

A: Hidden treasure is money jewelry or other

precious objects the ownership of which does not

appear (Art. 439, CC). The vault of the Banco de

las Islas Filipinas has been buried for about a

century and the Bank of the Philippine Islands

cannot succeed by inheritance to the property of

Banco de las Islas Filipinas. The ownership of the

vault, together with the notes and coins can now

legally be considered as hidden treasure because

its ownership is no longer apparent. The

contractor, Adams, is not a trespasser and

therefore entitled to one‐half of the hidden

treasure and Blas as owner of the property, is

entitled the other half ( Art. 438, NCC ). Since the

notes and coins have historical value, the

government may acquire them at their just price

which

in

turn

will

be

divided

equally

between

Adam and Blas (Art. 438, par.3, CC)

Alternative Answer: The Banco de las Islas

Filipinas is the owner of the vault. The finder and

the owner of the land cannot share in the notes

and coins, because they are not buried treasure

under the law, as the ownership is known.

Although under Art. 720 of the Civil Code the

finder shall be given a reward of one‐tenth of the

price of the thing found, as a lost movable, on the

principle of quasi‐contract.

However, the notes and coins may have become

res nullius

considering

that

Banco

de

las

Islas

Filipinas is no longer a juridical person and has

apparently given up looking for them and Adam,

the first one to take possession with intent to

possess shall become the sole owner.

Q: Assuming that either or both Adam and Blas

are adjudged as owners, will the notes and coins

be deemed part of their absolute community or

conjugal partnership of gains with their

respective spouses?

A: Yes. The hidden treasure will be part of the

absolute community or conjugal property, of the

respective marriages

(Arts.

91,

93

and

106,

Family

Code).

Alternative Answer: It is not hidden treasure and

therefore, not part of the absolute or conjugal

partnership of the spouses. But the finder of the

lost movable, then his reward equivalent to one‐

tenth of the value of the vault’s contents, will

form part of the conjugal partnership. If the

government wants to acquire the notes and

coins, it must expropriate them for public use as

museum pieces and pay just compensation. (2008

Bar Question)

B.

RIGHT OF

ACCESSION

Q: What is the right of accession?

A: That right of ownership of which an owner of a

thing has over the products of said thing

(accession discreta), as well as to all things

inseparably attached or incorporated thereto

90CIVIL LAW TEAM:

ADVISER: ATTY. ELMER T. RABUYA; SUBJECT HEAD: ALFREDO B. DIMAFELIX II;

ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: KAREN FELIZ G. SUPNAD, LAMBERTO L. SANTOS III; MEMBERS: PAUL ELBERT E. AMON, ALSTON ANARNA, OZAN J.

FULLEROS, CECILIO M. JIMENO, JR., ISMAEL SARANGAYA, JR.; CONTRIBUTORS: LOISE RAE G. NAVAL, MONICA JUCOM


3/84

PROPERTY







whether naturally or artificially (accession

continua). (Pineda Property, p. 88, 1999 ed)

1. FRUITS

Q: What is the rule on the owners right of

accession with respect to what is produced by

his property?

A: To the owner belongs the:

1. natural fruits;

2. industrial fruits;

3. civil fruits. ( Art. 441, NCC )

NOTE: Natural fruits are the spontaneous products

of the soil, and the young and other products of

animals.

Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any

kind

through

cultivation

or

labor.

Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of

leases of lands and other property and the amount

of perpetual or life annuities or other similar

income.

Q: What is the obligation of the owner who

receives the fruit from a third person?

A: He who receives the fruits has the obligation

to pay the expenses made by a third person in

their production, gathering, and preservation.

NOTE: Only such as are manifest or born are

considered as natural or industrial fruits.

With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are

in the womb of the mother, although unborn.

2. ACCESSION; IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FRUITS

Q: What is the rule if the planter and owner of the land are different?

A: As to:

Gathered Fruits

Planter in GF Planter in BF

Planter

Keeps fruits

Reimbursed for expenses for

production, gathering,

and

preservation

Owner

No necessity to reimburse the

planter of expenses since he retains

the fruits

Gets fruits, pay planter expenses

Standing Crops

Planter in GF Planter in BF

Planter

Reimbursed for expenses,

for production, gathering, and

preservation.

Loses everything. No right of

reimbursement

Owner

Owns fruits provided he pays

planter expenses,

for production, gathering, and

preservation.

Owns fruits


4/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

Q: Give the rule when the land owner is the builder, planter or sower.

A:

Land Owner

and Builder, Planter or Sower

Owner of Materials

Good

Faith

Good

Faith

Acquire building etc. after paying indemnity for value of

materials.

1. Remove materials if w/o injury to

works, plantings or constructions; or

2. Receive indemnity for value of

materials

Bad

Faith

Good

Faith

Acquire building etc. after paying value of materials AND

indemnity for damages, subject to the right of the owner of

materials

to

remove

1. Remove materials, w/ or w/o injury

and be indemnified for damages; or

2.

Be

indemnified

for

value

of

materials

and damages

Good

Faith

Bad

Faith

Acquire w/o paying indemnity and right to damages. Lose materials w/o being indemnified

and pay damages

Bad Faith Bad Faith

As though both acted in good faith

(in pari delicto)

92CIVIL LAW TEAM:





5/84

PROPERTY

Q: Give the rule when land owner is not builder, planter or sower.

A:

Land Owner Builder, Planter, Sower and Owner of Materials

Good Faith Good Faith

LO has option to:

1. Acquire improvements after paying indemnity which

could either be:

a. Original costs of improvements

b. Increase in the value of the whole.

2. Sell the land to builder and planter or collect rent from

sower unless the value of the land is considerably greater

than the building etc., in which case, the builder and planter

shall pay

rent

under

the

terms

fixed

by

the

parties.

In case land owner exercises (1), builder has the right to

retain until indemnity is paid and cannot be required to

pay rent.

Good Faith Bad Faith

1. Option to:

a. Acquire improvements without paying indemnity

and collect damages.

b. Sell the land to builder and planter or rent it to the

sower, and collect damages in both cases.

c. Order the demolition of work or restoration to

former condition and collect damages in both cases.

2. Pay necessary expenses for preservation.

1. Lose improvements without right to be indemnified.

2. Recover necessary expenses for preservation of land.

3. Pay damages to land owner.

Bad Faith Good Faith

1. Land owner must indemnify builder, planter, sower for

improvements and pay damages.

2. Cannot compel Builder, planter and sower to buy land.

1. Receive indemnity for improvements and receive

damages; or

2. Remove them in any event and receive damages

Bad Faith

Bad

Faith

As though both acted in good faith

(in pari delicto)








6/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

Q: Give the rule when the land owner, builder, planter, sower and owner of materials are different persons.

A:

Land Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials

Good Faith Good Faith Good Faith

1.

Acquire improvements

and

pay

indemnity to builder, planter, sower

and be subsidiarily liable to owner of

materials for value of materials

2. Either

a. Sell the land to builder and

planter except if its value is

considerably more.

b. Rent to sower.

1.

Right of

retention

for

necessary

and useful expenses and 2. Pay value

of materials to its owner.

1.

Collect value

of

materials

primarily from BPS and subsidiarily

from LO if former is insolvent

2. Remove only if w/o injury

Good

Faith

Good

Faith Bad

Faith

1. Option to:

a. Acquire improvements and pay

indemnity to builder, planter,

sower.

b.

i. Sell to builder, planter except if

the value of land is

considerably more, then,

forced lease.

ii. Rent

to

sower

2. Without subsidiary liability for cost

of materials.

1. Right of retention for necessary

and useful expenses.

2. Keep building etc. without

indemnity to owner of materials and

collect damages from him.

1. Lose materials without right to

indemnity.

2. Pay damages.

94CIVIL LAW TEAM:





7/84

PROPERTY

Good Faith Bad Faith Bad Faith

1. Option to:

a. Acquire improvements without

paying indemnity and collect

damages.

b. Demolition/ restore plus

damages.

c. Sell to builder,planter or collect

rent from sower plus damages.

2. Pay necessary expenses to builder,

planter, sower

1. Recover necessary expenses for

land

preservation.

2. Loses improvements without right

to indemnity from land owner unless

the latter sells the land.

1. Recover value from builder,

planter, sower (in pari delicto)

2. If builder, planter, sower acquired

improvements, remove materials if

possible without injury.

3. No action against land owner and

may be liable to the latter for

damages.

Bad Faith Bad Faith Bad Faith

Same as though both acted in good faith

(in pari delicto)

Bad Faith Good Faith Good Faith

1. Acquire improvements after paying

indemnity and damages to builder,

planter, sower, unless the latter

decides to remove.

1. Remove improvements

2. Be indemnified for damages in any

event

1. Remove materials if possible

without injury.

2. Collect value of materials primarily

from builder, planter, sower,

subsidiarily from land owner.

Bad Faith Bad Faith Good Faith

1. Acquire improvements after

indemnity, subsidiarily liable to owner

of materials.

2.

a. Sell to builder, planter except if

value of land is more.

b. Rent to sower.

1. Right of retention for necessary

expenses

2. Pay value of materials to owner of

materials and pay him damages.

1. Collect value of materials primarily

from builder, planter, sower,

subsidiarily from land owner.








8/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

96CIVIL LAW TEAM:




Good Faith Bad Faith Good Faith

1. Option to:

a. Acquire without paying

indemnity and collect damages.

b.

Sell

to

builder,

planter

or

rent

to

sower and collect damages

2. Pay necessary expenses to builder,

planter, sower.

3. Subsidiarily liable to owner of

materials.

1. Recover necessary expenses.

2. Lose improvements without right

of indemnity from land owner unless

the latter sells the land.

1. Collect value of materials and

damages from builder, planter,

sower.

2. Remove materials in any event if

builder, planter, sower.

Bad Faith Good Faith Bad Faith

Acquire improvements and pay

indemnity and damages to builder,

planter, sower unless the latter

decides to

remove.

1. Indemnity for damages

2.

Remove

improvements

in

any event.

No indemnity, loses materials.

Q: When can the owner of the land appropriate

as his own the works, sowing or planting of the

builder, planter, sower respectively.

A: Only when the builder, planter, sower believes

that he has the right to so build, plant, or sow

because he thinks he owns the land or believes

himself to have a claim of title. (Morales v. CA,

G.R. No. 12196, Jan.28, 1998)

Note: Improvements made prior to the annotation

of the notice of lis pendens are deemed to have been

made in good faith. After such annotation, the

builder can no longer invoke the rights of a builder in

good faith. (Carrascoso v. CA, G.R. No. 123672, Dec.

14, 2005)

Q:

May the owner of the land choose neither to

pay the building nor to sell the land and demand

the removal of the structures and restoration of

possession of the lot. Decide.

A: The owner has the option of paying the value

of the building or selling the land. He cannot

refuse either

to

pay

or

sell

and

compel

the

owner

of the building to remove it from the land where

it is erected. He is entitled to such removal only

when, after having chosen to sell the land, the

other party fails to pay for the same. (Ignacio v.

Hilario, 76 Phil 606, 1946)

Q: Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted

sugar cane, believing it to be his own. When the

crop was eight months old, and harvestable after

two more months, a resurvey of the land

showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are

the options available to Fred?

A: As to the pending crops planted by Felix in

good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix

to continue the cultivation and to harvest the

crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest

the crops himself. In the latter option, however,

Felix

shall

have

the

right

to

a

part

of

the

expenses

of cultivation and to a part of the net harvest,

both in proportion to the time of possession. ( Art.

545) (2000 Bar Question)

Q: Because of confusion as to the boundaries of

the adjoining lots that they bought from the

same subdivision company, X constructed a

house on the adjoining lot of Y in the honest

belief that it is the land that he bought from the

subdivision company.

1.

What are the respective rights of X and Y

with respect to X's house?

A: The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as

builder of a house thereon, are governed by Art.

448 which grants to Y the right to choose

between two remedies: (a) appropriate the house

by indemnifying X for its value plus whatever

necessary expenses the latter may have incurred

for the preservation of the land, or (b) compel X

to buy the land if the price of the land is not


9/84

PROPERTY

considerably more than the value of the house. If

it is, then X cannot be obliged to buy the land but

he shall pay reasonable rent, and in case of

disagreement, the court shall fix the terms of the

lease.

2. Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew

that X

was

constructing

on

his

(Y's)

land

but

simply kept quiet about it, thinking perhaps

that he could get X's house later. What are

the respective rights of the parties over X's

house in this case?

A: Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad

faith ( Art. 453), X as the party in good faith may

(a) remove the house and demand

indemnification for damages suffered by him, or

(b) demand payment of the value of the house

plus reparation for damages ( Art. 447 , in relation

to Art. 454). Y continues as owner of the lot and

becomes, under the second option, owner of the

house as

well,

after

he

pays

the

sums

demanded.

(1999 Bar Question)

Q: Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he

built a building. For failure to pay realty taxes,

the lot was sold at public auction to

Nepomuceno, who in turn sold it to the spouses

Nuguid. The sale, however, does not include the

building. The spouses subsequently moved for

the delivery of possession of the said lot and

apartment. Pecson filed a motion to restore

possession pending determination of the value

of the apartment. May Pecson claim payment of

rentals?

A: Yes, Pecson is entitled to rentals by virtue of

his right of retention over the apartment. The

construction of the apartment was undertaken at

the time when Pecson was still the owner of the

lot. When the Nuguids became the uncontested

owner of the lot, the apartment was already in

existence and occupied by tenants.

Art. 448 does not apply to cases where the owner

of the land is the builder but who later lost the

land; not being applicable, the indemnity that

should be paid to the buyer must be the fair

market value of the building and not just the cost

of

construction

thereof.

To

do

otherwise

would

unjustly enrich the new owner of the land.

Note: While the law aims to concentrate in one

person the ownership of the land and the

improvements thereon in view of the

impracticability of creating a state of forced co‐

ownership, it guards against unjust enrichment

insofar as the good‐faith builder’s improvements are

concerned. The right of retention is considered as

one of the measures to protect builders in good

faith.

Q: Pending complete reimbursement, may the

spouses Nuguid benefit from the improvement?

A: No. Since spouses Nuguid opted to appropriate

the

improvement

for

themselves

when

they applied for a writ of execution despite knowledge

that the auction sale did not include the

apartment building, they could not benefit from

the lot’s improvement until they reimbursed the

improver in full, based on the current market

value of the property. (Pecson v. CA, G.R. No.

115814, May 26, 1995)

Q: In good faith, Pedro constructed a five‐door

commercial building on the land of Pablo who

was also in good faith. When Pablo discovered

the construction, he opted to appropriate the

building by paying Pedro the cost thereof.

However,

Pedro

insists

that

he

should

be

paid the current market value of the building, which

was much higher because of inflation.

1. Who is correct, Pedro or Pablo?

A: Pablo is correct. Under Art. 448 in relation to

Art. 546, the builder in good faith is entitled to a

refund of the necessary and useful expenses

incurred by him, or the increase in value which

the land may have acquired by reason of the

improvement, at the option of the landowner.

The builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses

he incurred, and not to the market value of the

improvement.

Note: The case of Pecson v. CA, G.R. No. 115814,

May 26, 1995 is not applicable.

2. In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid,

who is entitled to the rentals of the building,

Pedro or Pablo?

A: Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building.

As the owner of the land, Pablo is also the owner

of the building being an accession thereto.

However, Pedro who is entitled to retain the

building is also entitled to retain the rentals. He,

however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity

payable to him after deducting reasonable cost of

repair and maintenance. (2000 Bar Question)

Q: What is the effect if the building built on the

land owned by another is sold to pay for the

land’s value?

A: The builder becomes part‐owner of the land.








10/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

Q: When may the land owner compel the

removal of the building built on his land?

A: The landowner may not seek to compel the

owner of the building to remove the building

from the land after refusing to pay for the

building or to sell the land. He is entitled to such

removal only

when,

after

having

chosen

to

sell

the land, the other party fails to pay for said land.

(Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. L‐175, April 30, 1946)

Q: What is the rule when the land’s value is

considerably more than the improvement?

A: Land owner cannot compel the builder to buy

the land. In such event, a “forced lease” is created

and the court shall fix the terms thereof in case

the parties disagree thereon (Depra v. Dumalo,

No. L‐57348, May 16, 1985).

Q: What is the rule when land owner sells the

land to

a 3

rd

person

who

is

in

bad

faith?

A: Builder must go against the 3rd

person but if

the latter has paid the land owner, a case against

such land owner may still be filed by the builder

and the 3rd

person may file a 3rd

party complaint

against land owner.

Q: Does the land owner have the right of

removal or demolition?

A:

GR: No.

XPN:

Option

exercised

was

compulsory

selling and builder failed to pay.

98CIVIL LAW TEAM:




Q: What is the recourse left to the parties where

the builder fails to pay the value of the land?

A: While the Civil Code is silent on this point,

guidance may be had from these decisions:

1. In Miranda v. Fadullon, G.R. No. L‐8220,

Oct. 29, 1955, the builder might be

made to pay rental only, leave things as

they are, and assume the relation of

lessor and lessee;

2. In Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. L‐175, April 30,

1946, owner of the land may have the

improvement removed; or

3. In Bernardo v. Bataclan, G.R. No. L‐

44606 , Nov. 28, 1938, the land and the

improvement may be sold in a public

auction, applying the proceeds first to

the payments of the value of the land,

and the excess if any, to be delivered to

the owner of the house in payment

thereof. (Filipinas College Inc. v.

Timbang, G.R. No. L‐12812, Sept. 29,

1959 )

Q: Will the land owner upon demand for

payment automatically become the owner of the

improvement for failure of the builder to pay for

the value of the land?

A: No. There is nothing in Art. 448 and 546 which

would justify the conclusion that upon failure of

the builder to pay the value of the land, when

such is demanded by the landowner, the land

owner becomes automatically the owner of the

improvement under Art. 445.

Q: The Church, despite knowledge that its

intended

contract

of

sale

with

the

National

Housing Autority had not been perfected,

proceeded to introduce improvements on the

disputed land. On the other hand, NHA

knowingly granted the Church temporary use of

the subject properties and did not prevent the

Church from making improvements thereon. Did

the Church and NHA act in bad faith?

A: Yes. The Church and the NHA, both acted in

bad faith, hence, they shall be treated as if they

were both in good faith. (National Housing

Authority v. Grace Baptist Church, G.R. No.

156437, Mar. 1, 2004)

USUFRUCTUARY

Q: What are the rights of the usufruct over

improvements he introduced on the property

held in usufruct?

A:

GR: The usufructuary is not entitled to

indemnity for the expenses he had incurred in

the making of the improvements.

XPN: He

may

remove

the

improvements

even

against the will of the owner. Provided, that

no damage would be caused to the property.

( Art. 579, NCC )

Note: The usufructuary may introduce useful or

luxurious improvements but is prohibited from

altering the form and substance of the property

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1959/sep1959/gr_l-12812_1959.phphttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1938/nov1938/gr_l-44606_1938.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/oct1955/gr_l-8220_1955.html


11/84

PROPERTY

Note: If the usufructuary has not chosen to remove

the improvements, he may not be compelled to do

so (Pineda Property, p. 329, 1999 ed)

Q: What if the improvements cannot be removed

without causing damage to the property?

A: The usufructuary can set‐off the value of the

improvements against the amount of the damage

he had caused to the property. ( Art. 580, NCC )







3. LAND ADJOINING RIVER BANKS

A. ALLUVION

Q: What is alluvium or alluvion?

A: It is the gradual deposit of sediment by natural

action of a current of fresh water (not sea water),

the original identity of the deposit being lost.

Where

is

by

sea

water,

it

belongs

to

the

State.

(Government of Philippine Islands v. Cabangis,

G.R. No. L‐28379, Mar. 27, 1929)

Note: Art. 457 states “To the owners of the lands

adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the

accretion which they gradually receive from the

effects of the current of the waters.

Q: Distinguish accretion from alluvium?

A: Accretion is the process whereby the soil is

deposited while alluvium is the soil deposited.

Q: What are the requisites of alluvium?

A: GMA

1. Deposit is Gradual and imperceptible

2. Made through the effects of the current

of the water

3. The land where the accretion takes

place is Adjacent to the banks of the

river

Q: What is the effect if all the requisites are

present?

A: The riparian owner is automatically entitled to

the accretion.

Q: When does the alluvion start to become the

property of the riparian owner?

A: From the time that the deposit created by the

current of water becomes manifest. (Heirs of

Navarro v. IAC, GR. No. 68166, Feb. 12, 1997)

Q: To what does the rule on alluvion not apply?

A: The rule does not apply to man‐made or

artificial accretions to lands that adjoin canals or

esteros or artificial drainage system (Ronquillo vs.

CA, G.R. No 43346, Mar. 20, 1991).

Q: What if the deposits accumulate, not through

the effects of the current of the water, but

because of

the

constructions

made

by

the

owner

purely for defensive purposes against the

damaging action of the water?

A: The deposits are still deemed to be alluvion

and will belong to the riparian owner.

Q: What if the deposit is brought about by sea

water?

A: It belongs to the State and forms part of the

public domain.

Q: Must alluvial deposits be registered?

A: Yes, though automatically it is owned by the

riparian owner. (Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, G.R. No.

68166, Feb. 12, 1997)

Q: What if the riparian owner fails to register the

deposits within the prescriptive period?

A: Failure to register the alluvial deposit acquired

by accretion for a period of 50 years subjects said

accretion to acquisition thru prescription by third

persons. (Reynante v. CA, G.R. No. 95907, Apr. 8,

1992)

Note: Registration under the Torrens System does

not protect the riparian owner against the

diminution of the area of his registered land

through gradual changes in the course of an

adjoining stream

Q: What are the reasons for granting a riparian

owner the right to alluvion deposited by a river?

A:

1. To compensate him for:

a. danger of loss that he suffers due

to the location of his land

b. for the encumbrances and other

easements on his land

2 To promote the interests of agriculture

as he is in the best position to utilize the

accretion.


12/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

B. CHANGE INTHE COURSE OF RIVER

3

Q: What happens when a river changes its

course by natural causes and its bed is formed

on a private estate?

100CIVIL LAW TEAM:




A:

It

becomes

of

public

dominion

whether

it

is

navigable or floatable or not.

Q: What are the requisites?

A: NAPA

1. There must be a Natural change in the

course of the waters of the river;

otherwise, the bed may be the subject

of a State grant (Reyes‐Puno, p.54)

2. The change must be Abrupt or sudden;

3. The change must be Permanent;

Note:

the

rule

does

not

apply

to

temporary overflowing of the river.

4. There must be Abandonment by the

owner of the bed.

Note: Abandonment pertains to the decision

not to bring back the river to the old bed.

(Reyes‐Puno, p.53)

Q: What is the effect when the river bed is

abandoned?

A: Once the river bed has been abandoned, the

owners of the invaded land become owners of

the abandoned

bed

to

the

extent

as

provided

by

Art. 462. No positive act is needed on their part,

as it is subject thereto ipso jure from the moment

the mode of acquisition becomes evident.

Note: The rule on abandoned river bed does not

apply to cases where the river simply dries up

because there are no persons whose lands are

occupied by the waters of the river.

C. AVULSION

Q: What is avulsion?

A: It is the deposit of known (identifiable) portion

of land detached from the property of another

which is attached to the property of another as a

result of the effect of the current of a river, creek

or torrent.

Note: Art. 459 states that “Whenever the current of

a river, creek, or torrent segregates from an estate

on its banks a known portion of land and transfers it

to another estate, the owner of the land to which

the segregated portion belonged retains the

ownership of it, provided he removes it within 2

years.

Q: Distinguish alluvium from avulsion.

A:

ALLUVIUM AVULSION

Gradual and

imperceptible

Sudden or abrupt

process

Soil cannot be

identified

Identifiable and

verifiable

Belongs to the owner

of the property to

which it is attached

Belongs to the owner

from whose property it

was detached

Merely an attachment Detachment followed by

attachment

Q: What are the requisites of avulsion?

A: CAP

1. Transfer is caused by the Current of a

river, creek, or torrent.

2. Transfer is sudden or Abrupt

3. The Portion of the land transported is

known or identifiable.

Q: What if land from one tenement is

transferred to another by forces of nature other

than

the

river

current?

A: By analogy, it can still be considered as an

avulsion.

Q: What is the rule on acquisition of titles over

an avulsion?

A:

GR: Original owner retains title.

XPNs: The owner must remove (not merely

claim) the transported portion within 2 years

to retain ownership, otherwise, the land not

removed

shall

belong

to

the

owner

of

the

land to which it has been adjudicated in case

of:

1. Abandonment; or

2. Expiration of 2 years, whether the

failure to remove be voluntary or

involuntary, and irrespective of the

area of the portion known to have

been transferred.


13/84

PROPERTY

4. ISLANDS

Q: What are the rules on ownership with regard

to formation of islands?

A:







LOCATION

OWNER

If formed on the sea

W/in territorial waters State

Outside territorial

waters First country to occupy

If formed on lakes or navigable/ floatable rivers

State

If formed on non‐navigable/ floatable rivers

Nearer in margin to

one bank

Owner of nearer

margin is the sole

owner

If equidistant Island divided

longitudinally in halves

Q: Eduave is the owner of land forming part of

an island in a non‐navigable river. Said land was

eroded due to a typhoon, destroying the bigger

portion thereof and improvements thereon.

Due to the movements of the river deposits on

the

part

of

the

land

that

was

not

eroded,

the

area was increased. Later, Eduave allowed

Dodong to introduce improvements thereon and

live there as a caretaker. However, Dodong

however later denied Eduave’s claim of

ownership so the latter filed action to quiet title

over the property. Who has a better right to the

land?

A: Eduave. Clearly, the land in question is an

island that appears in a non‐floatable and non‐

navigable river, and it is not disputed that Eduave

is the owner of the parcel of land along the

margin of the river and opposite the island.

Applying Art. 465, the island belongs to the owner

of

the

parcel

of

land

nearer

the

margin.

More accurately, because the island is longer than the

property of Eduave, he is deemed ipso jure the

owner of that portion which corresponds to the

length of his property along the margin of the

river. If however, the riparian owner fails to

assert his claim thereof, the same may yield to

the adverse possession of the third parties, as

indeed even accretion to land titled under the

Torrens system must itself still be registered.

Dodong thus may acquire said land by acquisitive

prescription. But here, Dodong’s possession

cannot be considered to be in good faith, so 30

years of possession is needed. (Jagualing v. CA,

G.R. No. 94283, Mar. 4, 1991)

Note: There is no accession when islands are formed

by

the

branching

of

a

river;

the

owner

retains

ownership of the isolated piece of land.

C. BY OBJECT

1. REAL OR IMMOVABLE

Q: What are the categories of immovable

property?

A: Real Property by: NIDA

1. N ature – cannot be carried from place

to place.

2. I ncorporation

–

those

which

are attached to an immovable in a fixed

manner and considered as an integral

part thereof, irrespective of its

ownership.

3. Destination – things placed in buildings

or on lands by the owner of the

immovable or his agent in such a

manner that it reveals the intention to

attach them permanently thereto.

4. Analogy – classified by express

provision of law.

IMMOVABLE BY NATURE &

BY INCORPORATION

Par. 1, Art. 415. Land, buildings, roads and

constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.

Q: Are barong‐barongs immovable property?

A: No. They are not permanent structures but

mere superimpositions on land.

Q:

Where

buildings

are

sold

to

be

demolished immediately, are the buildings immovable or

movable?

A: The sale involves movable property. What are

really sold are the materials.

Q: What is the effect of demolition of a house?


14/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

A: Once a house is demolished, its character as

an immovable ceases. This is because a house is

classified as an immovable property by reason of

its adherence to the soil on which it is built.

(Bicerra v. Teneza, G.R. No. L‐16218, Nov. 29,

1962)

Q:

May a building

be

mortgaged

apart

from

the

land on which it was built?

A: While it is true that a mortgage of land

necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation

of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a

building by itself may be mortgage apart from the

land on which it has been built. Such a mortgage

would still be a real estate mortgage for the

building would still be considered immovable

property even if dealt with separately and apart

from the land. (Yee v. Strong Machinery

Company, G.R. No. 11658, Feb.15, 1918)

102CIVIL LAW TEAM:




Q: Can

a building

erected

on

a land

belonging

to

another be mortgaged?

A: Yes. A valid real estate mortgage can be

constituted. Art. 415 of the New Civil Code

mentions “buildings” separate from land. This

means that the building by itself is an immovable

and may be subject of a REM. (Prudential Bank v.

Panis, G.R. No. L‐50008, Aug. 31, 1987)

Q: Is the annotation or inscription of a deed of

sale of real property in a chattel mortgage

registry considered an inscription in the registry

of real property?

A: No. By its express terms, the Chattel Mortgage

Law contemplates and makes provisions for

mortgages of personal property; and the sole

purpose and object of the chattel mortgage

registry is to provide for the registry of “Chattel

mortgages,” that is to say, mortgages of personal

property executed in the manner and form

prescribed in the statute. (Yee v. Strong

Machinery Co, G.R. No. L‐11658, Feb. 15, 1918)

Par. 2, Art. 415. Trees, plants and growing fruits,

while they are attached to the land or form an

integral part of an immovable.

Q: Are trees immovable or movable?

A:

1. Real property by nature‐ if they are

spontaneous products of the soil

2. Real property by incorporation‐ If they

have been planted thru cultivation or

labor

Note: The moment trees are detached or uprooted

from the land it is considered as personal property.

However, in case of uprooted timber, they are still

not considered

as

personal

property

because

timber

is an integral part of the timber land.

IMMOVABLE BY INCORPORATION

Par. 3, Art. 415. 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.

Q: What is res vinta?

A: These are immovable by incorporation, which

when separated from the immovable, they regain

their condition as movable?

IMMOVABLE BY INCORPORATION & BY

DESTINATION

Par. 4, Art. 415. Statutes, reliefs, paintings or other

objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or

on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a

manner that it reveals the intention to attach them

permanently to the tenements.

Q: What do you mean by “ placed by the owner” ?

A: The objects must be placed by the owner of

the immovable and not necessarily the owner of

the object.


15/84

PROPERTY

Q: Distinguish Par. 3 from Par. 4.

A:







PAR. 3 PAR. 4

Cannot be separated

from the

immovable

without breaking or

deterioration

Can be separated from

the immovable

without

breaking or

deterioration.

Need not be placed by

the owner

Must be placed by the

owner of the

immovable, or by his

agent whether express

or implied

Real property by

incorporation

Real property by

incorporation and

destination

Par. 5, Art. 415. 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 & which tend directly to meet the

needs of the said industry or works.

Q: What are the requisites for machinery to be

considered real property?

A: COTE

1. The industry or work must be Carried

on in a building or on a piece of land;

2. The machinery must:

a. Be placed by the Owner of the

tenement or his agent;

b. Tend directly to meet the needs of

the said industry or work; and

c. Be Essential and principal to the

industry or work, and not merely

incidental thereto.

Q: Is machinery placed by a tenant or by a

usufructuary considered

real

property?

A: No. Since it is placed by a person having only a

temporary right, it does not become immobilized.

Note: Where a tenant places the machinery under

the express provision of lease that it shall become a

part of the land belonging to the owner upon the

termination of the lease without compensation to

the lessee, the tenant acts as an agent of the owner

and the immobilization of the machineries arises

from the act of the owner in giving by contract a

permanent destination to the machinery. (Valdez v.

Central Altagracia, 225 U.S. 58, 1912)

Q: How is the equipment of a transportation

business classified?

A: A

transportation

business

is

not

carried

on

in

a building or on a specified land. Hence, equipment

destined only to repair or service a transportation

business may not be deemed real property, but

personal property. (Mindanao Bus Co. v. City

Assessor and Treasurer, G.R. No. L‐17870, Sept.

29, 1962)

Note: Machines must be essential and principal

elements in the industry and must directly meet the

needs of said industry. It does not include movables

which are merely incidentals, without which the

business can still continue or carry on their

functions.

Q:

Are

machineries

bolted or

cemented

on

real

property mortgaged considered an immovable

property?

A: No. The fact that machineries were bolted or

cemented on real property mortgaged does not

make them ipso facto immovable under Art. 415

(3) and (5) as the parties intent has to be looked

into.

Q: Can parties treat an immovable property by

nature as a chattel?

A: Yes. Even if the properties appear to be

immovable

by

nature,

nothing

detracts

the

parties from treating them as chattels to secure

an obligation under the principle of estoppel.

(Tsai v. CA, G.R. No. 120098, Oct. 2, 2001)

Q: What is the effect of temporary separation of

movables from the immovables to which they

are attached?

A: 2 views

1. They continue to be regarded as

immovables.

2. Fact of separation determines the

condition of

the

objects

thus

recovering

their condition as movables.


16/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

2. PERSONAL OR MOVABLE

Q: What are movable properties?

A: SOFTSS

1. Movables Susceptible of appropriation

which are

not

included

in

Art.

415;

2. Real property which by any Special

provision of law considers as personalty

e.g. growing crops under the Chattel

Mortgage Law.

3. Forces of nature which are brought

under the control of science

e.g. electricity generated by electric

powers, solar light for batteries

power.

4. In general, all things which can be

Transported from place to place

without impairment

of

the

real

property

to which they are fixed;

5. Obligations and actions which have for

their object movables or demandable

sums; and

6. Shares of stock of agricultural,

commercial and industrial entities,

although they have real estate. (Art.

416, NCC)

Q: State the tests to determine whether a

property is a movable property.

104CIVIL LAW TEAM:




A:

MES

1. Test of E xclusion – everything not

included in Art. 415.

Note: E.g. ships or vessels or interest in

a business.

2. By reason of a S pecial law – immovable

by nature but movable for the purpose

of the special law.

Note: e.g. Growing crops for purposes

of the Chattel Mortgage Law.

3. Test of Mobility – if the property is capable of being carried from place to

place without injuring the real property

to which it may in the mean time be

attached.

D. BY OWNER

Q: How are properties classified according to

ownership?

A:

1. Public dominion

‐property

owned

by

the State (or its political subdivisions) in

its public or sovereign capacity and

intended for public use.

2. Private ownership – property owned by:

a. Private persons, either individually

or collectively; and

b. The State in its private capacity

( patrimonial property).

c. The LGUs:

i. Property for

public

use

–

roads, streets, squares,

fountains, public waters,

promenades and public works

for public service paid for by

the LGUs.

ii. Patrimonial Property – all

other properties possessed by

LGUs without prejudice to

special laws. (Art. 419, NCC)

1. PUBLIC DOMINION

Q: What are the kinds of property of public

dominion?

A: Properties which are: USD

1. For public Use;

2. Intended for public Service and not for

public use; and

3. For the Development of the national

wealth. (Art. 420, NCC)

Q: What are the characteristics of properties of

public dominion?

A: ULEP‐ ROB

1. In general, they can be Used by

everybody;

2. Cannot be Levied upon by execution or

attachment;

3. May Either be real or personal property;

4. Cannot be acquired by Prescription;


17/84

PROPERTY

5. Cannot be Registered under Land

Registration Law and be the subject of

Torrens Title;

6. Outside the commerce of man – cannot

be alienated or leased or be subject of

any contract;

7. Cannot be Burdened by voluntary

easement.

Q: Who has the authority to classify or reclassify

public lands?

A: As provided in the Public Land Act, the

classification or reclassification of public lands

into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest

lands is a prerogative of the executive

department of the government and not of the

courts.

Q: Can property of public dominion be converted

to patrimonial property?

A: Yes, through a formal declaration by the

executive or legislative body that the property is

no longer needed for public use or for public

service.

Q: May public streets or thoroughfares be leased

or licensed to market stallholders by virtue of a

city ordinance or resolution of the Metro Manila

Commission?







A: No. The right of the public to use the city

streets may not be bargained away through

contract. Hence, the agreement between the city

government

and

stall

holders

is

contrary

to

law and therefore void.

Q: Do LGU’s have the power to withdraw a

public street from public use?

A: LGU cannot withdraw a public street from

public use, unless it has been granted such

authority by law. (Dacanay v. Asistio Jr,, G.R. No.

93654, May 6, 1992)

2. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

Q: What are properties in private ownership of

private persons or entities?

A: All properties not belonging to the State or to

its political subdivision are properties of private

ownership pertaining to private persons, either

individually or collectively.

Q: Are aliens prohibited to privately own lands?

A: Yes. Aliens have no right to acquire any public

or private agriculture, commercial or residential

lands (except by hereditary succession). (Krivenko

v. Register or Deeds)

Note: The

same

rule

applies

to

a foreign

corporation

even if it is a religious non ‐ stock corporation.

Q: What is the patrimonial property of the

State?

A: It is the property not devoted to public use,

public service, or the development of the national

wealth. It is intended rather for the attainment of

the economic ends of the State, that is, for

subsistence. It is owned by the State in its private

or proprietary capacity.

Note: It may be disposed of by the State in the same

manner that private individuals dispose of their own

property subject, however, to administrative laws

and regulations

Note: It may be subject to prescription (Art. 1113)

and it can be the object of ordinary contracts or

agreements. (Pineda Property, p. 28, 1999 ed)

E. BY NATURE

Q: How are properties classified according to

consumability?

A:

1. Consumable property

–

that

which

cannot be used according to its nature

without being consumed or being eaten

or used up.

i.e. A glass of wine

2. Non‐Consumable property – that which

can be used according to its nature

without being consumed or being eaten

or used up.

i.e. Eyeglasses (Art. 418, Pineda

Property, p. 21. 1999 ed)

Q:

How

are

properties

classified

according

to

susceptibility to substitution?

A:

1. Fungible property – that property which

belongs to a common genus permitting

its substitution.

i.e. grains of sugar or salt, oil, vinegar


18/84

UST GOLDENNOTES2011

2. Non‐ fungible property – that property

which is specified and not subject to

substitution.

i.e. a specific house at a specific

address.

Note: As to whether a property is fungible or non‐

fungible

is

determined

by

the

agreement

of

the

parties and not on the consumability of the thing.

(Pineda Property, p. 22, 1999 ed)

106CIVIL LAW TEAM:




III. OWNERSHIP

A. RIGHTS IN GENERAL

Q: What is ownership?

A: The juridical relation of a person over a thing

by virtue of which said person has the exclusive

power or authority to receive all the benefits and

advantages arising from said thing, save those

restricted

by

law

or

the

recognized

rights

of

others.

Q: What are the kinds of ownership?

A: FNSC

1. F ull ownership – includes all the rights

of an owner;

Note: Naked ownership + Usufruct

2. N aked ownership – ownership where

the rights to the use and to the fruits

have been denied;

Note: Full ownership – Usufruct

3. Sole ownership – ownership is vested in

only one person;

4. C o‐ownership – ownership is vested in 2

or more persons.

Q: What are the characteristics of ownership?

A:

1. Elastic – power/s may be reduced and

thereafter automatically recovered

upon the cessation of the limitingq;

rights.

2. General – the right to make use of all

the

possibilities

or

utility

of

the

thing

owned, except those attached to other

real rights existing thereon.

3. Exclusive – there can only be one

ownership over a thing at a time. There

may be two or more owners but only

one ownership.

4. Independent – other rights are not

necessary for its existence.

5. Perpetual – ownership lasts as long as

the thing exists. It cannot be

extinguished by non user but only by

adverse possession.

1. BUNDLE OF RIGHTS PERSONAL OR MOVABLE

A. JUS UTENDI, FRUENDI, ABUTENDI,

VINDICANDI, DISPODENDI, POSSIDENDI

Q: What are the attributes of ownership?

A:

1. Right to enjoy ( jus utendi )

2. Right to the fruits ( jus fruendi )

3. Right to abuse ( jus abutendi )

4. Right to dispose ( jus dispodendi )

5. Right to

recover

( jus

vindicandi )

REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION

1. ACTIONS TO RECOVER OWNERSHIP AND

POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY

Q: What are the legal remedies to recover

possession of one’s property?

A:

1. Personal property ‐ replevin

2. Real property

a. Accion Interdictal

i. Forcible Entry

ii. Unlawful detainer

b. Accion Publiciana

c. Accion Reinvindicatoria

A. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ACCION

REIVINDICATORIA, ACCION PUBLICIANA, ACCION

INTERDICTAL

ACCION INTERDICTAL

Q: What is accion interdictal?

A: A summary action to recover physical or

material

possession

only

and

must

be

brought

within one year from the time the cause of action

arises.

1. Forcible Entry

2. Unlawful detainer


19/84

PROPERTY

ACCION PUBLICIANA

Q: What is accion publiciana?

A: Ordinary civil proceeding to recover the better

right of possession, except in cases of forcible

entry

and

unlawful

detainer.

What

is

involved

here is not possession de facto but possession de

jure.

ACCION REINVINDICATORIA

Q: What is accion reinvindicatoria?

A: Action to recover real property based on

ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of the

dominion over the property as owner.







Q: What are the requisites of accion

reinvindicatoria?

A: Requisites:

1. Identity of Property

2. Plaintiff’s title to the property

Note: Where the facts averred in the complaint

reveals that the action is neither one of forcible

entry nor unlawful detainer but essentially involves a

boundary dispute, the same must be resolved in an

accion reinvindicatoria (Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No.

116192, Nov. 16, 1995).

Q: A contract of lease executed by Alava (lessor)

and

Anita

Lao

(lessee)

was

not

registered

with

the Register of Deeds. Aside from Anita, Rudy

Lao also leased a portion of the same property

where he put up his business. At that time, Rudy

knew that Anita and her husband were the

owners of the said building. He also knew that

she had leased that portion of the property, and

that Jaime Lao, their son, managed and

maintained the building, as well as the business

thereon. Rudy eventually purchased the entire

property from Alava. Rudy then filed a complaint

for unlawful detainer against Jaime alleging that

the latter had occupied a portion of his property

without any lease agreement and without

paying any

rentals,

and

prayed

that

an

order

be

rendered directing Jaime to vacate the premises.

Should the complaint be dismissed?

A: Yes. The records in this case show that the

respondent has been in possession of the

property in question, not by mere tolerance or

generosity of Rudy, but as the manager of his

mother, who conducted her business in the

building which stood on a�

ust golden notes 2011 - property and prescription

Documents