Bishop of Cebu v. Mangabon (1906)Facts:1. Mariano Mangabons parents and brothers had been in possession of a tract of land in the district of Ermita until about the year 1877 (possession of at least 20 years)2. In 1878, they vacated the land by virtue of an order from the municipality which declared that the land was included within the zone of materiales Fuertes (fire zone) and the houses in which they lived upon were of light materials3. They vacated said land without objection4. After the land was vacated, Parish Priests of Ermita Church fenced the land and cleaned the same without any objection on the part of anyone5. In 1898, Mangabons entered upon the land in question and built thereon a nipa house and continued to live thereon without the consent of the parish priest of Ermita Church or the Bishop of Cebu6. Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Bishop of Cebu filed an action to recover possession of said land; amended complaint for said land to be declared property of the Catholic Church and that it be restored to the latter Property had belonged to the Catholic Church from time immemorial Mangabons occupied apart thereof by the mere tolerance of the Catholic Church7. Mangabon: Claims to be the owner of the land by inheritance He was the legal owner when he was unlawfully ejected by the Bishop of Cebu in 1879 He had a right to re-enter; time for prescription has not yet expired since he was ejected

TC: Ruled in favor of Bishop of Cebu and ordered Mangabons to vacate the land Occupation of the land by Mangabon in the year 1898 was illegal If he thought he had a right to the land, he should have filed an action with the court to recover possession and not proceed to occupy the property If the Church acceded and voluntarily returned possession and acknowledged that the property belonged to him, there would be no necessity to file an action; but in this case, Church has objected to the occupation which necessitates a filing of a proper action The possession held by Mangabon in 1898 cannot be added to the former possession which was interrupted in 1877 by the order of the municipality Art. 466 CC: a person who recovers possession according to law, which is improperly lost, is considered as having enjoyed it without interruption for all the purposes which may redound to his benefit It cannot be ascertained that the possession enjoyed by Mangabon was improperly lost It has been lost by virtue of an order from the municipality and no proof to the contrary was presented Impossible to say what was the nature of possession prior to the year 1877whether it was held by right or by the mere tolerance of the Church Acts of violence or secrecy or mere tolerance cannot affect the right of possession Mangabon could not have lawfully done what he didto re-enter upon the land from which he had been ejected by the city of Manila If the order of the municipality was illegal, and that the possession was improperly lost, Mangabon SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES to recover it PLENARY ACTION8. Mangabon filed petition. SC resolved a relevant question of law in deciding whether to affirm the decision of the TC availability of accion publiciana

Issue: Whether after the promulgation of the CC, accion publiciana, which had for its object the recovery of possession in a plenary action before an action for the recovery of title could be instituted, still existed (YES)

Ratio: Available actions: Accion interdictal recovery of physical possession within 1 year from the time of dispossession Accion publiciana better right to such possession brought after lapse of 1 year Recovery of ownership action for title If Mangabon instituted the accion interdictal within 1 year from dispossession, he would have been restored to the possession 1 year period has already elapsed so such summary action for possession could not be maintained But even after the lapse of 1 year, he still could have brought an accion publiciana involved the right to possess; based upon the fact the he, having been in possession for 20 years, could not lose the same until he had been given opportunity to be heard and had been defeated in an action in court by another with a better right

DOUBT ARISES whether accion publiciana is still available from Art. 460 CC Possessor may lose possession:(1) Abandonment(2) Transfer to another for a good or valuable consideration(3) Destruction or total loss of the thing or by the thing becoming unkmarketable(4) By the possession of another, even against the will of the former possessor, if the new possession has lasted more than one year Questions: Which is lost, possession de facto or also possession de jure? In the first three, both may be lost, so it would be strange if the fourth merely referred to possession de jure. However, ownership cannot be lost under the fourth; owner may recover ownership, and is only barred by statute of limitations Evidence that accion publiciana still exists: Possession constitutes a right, a right in rem, whenever it is exercised over real property or property rights Where there is a right, there is a cause of action It is sufficient that the right existing, there should be an action to protect it. No necessity of any special declaration in CC It is impossible to conceive that a person has a right which need not be respected by others, and such respect cannot be exacted unless the law provides a remedy for its enforcement If a person has a right over any kind of property, such right would not be complete unles sit could be enforced as against the whole world The action is a recognition of the right; it is a weapon for its protection The right does not arise from the action; but vice versa Accion publiciana exists, nor for the sake of equity, but because it must necessarily exist or can exist as provided in Art. 445 Action brought by Catholic Church to recover the possession which was unlawfully deprived by the defendant can be properly maintained

Chacon v. CA (1983)Facts:1. Ramon Chacon granted a fishpond lease agreement by Director of Forestry to construct and maintain a fishpond over a mangrove swamp in Barrio Lapasan, municipality of Cagayan, Oriental Misamis2. Chacon developed the area into a fishpond, clearing its shrubby growths and enclosing the same with perimetric dikes3. Upon his death, his heirs succeeded him in possession, and were issued a transfer ordinary fishpond permit4. Heirs entered into a partnership agreement, under the name Chacon Enterprises for the purpose of acquiring title over the fishpond5. Partnership applied for the purchase not only of the 15-hectare fishpond, but also the adjoining eastern portion with an area of 4 hectares6. Sales application alleged: area applied for had no indication of settlement, occupation or improvement, except the dikes and concrete gates owned by the heirs of Ramon Chacon7. Sales application was approved; an Order Award was issued in favor of partnership (19 hectares, 11 ares, 14 centares); OCT issued.8. Chacon Enterprises filed an ejectment suit against Florentino Galasino and several other persons who were in actual possession of an area of 43, 792 sqm. Of the eastern portion of the land

TC: Dismissed action. Ocular inspection revealed: defendants houses constructed in the premises are already very old and in a dilapidated condition defendants were staying and living in the premises for more than one year

9. Chacon Enterprises commenced an action to recover possession of the said eastern portion Defendants, under claim of ownership, have succeeded in occupying certain portions of its registered land without their consent; refused to vacate10. Defendants: Assert absolute ownership They inherited the same from Santiago Ebora who had been in continuous, public and exclusive possession, as owner thereof, since time immemorial Upon death, the succeeded in possession as exclusive owners; have planted coconuts thereon Chacon Enterprises title is null and void11. Galasino et al. instituted case against Chacon Enterprises for annulment of OCT and reconveyance of eastern portion of its titled land12. At pre-trial, parties agreed that the land in litigation has an area of 43,792 sqm.

CFI on Galasinos action for annulment of OCT: dismissed.

CFI on Chacon Enterprises action for recovery of possession: ruled in favor of Chacon; ordered Galasino et al. to vacate and surrender possession

13. Galasino et al. filed an appeal with CA. Basic issue: who between the parties has a better right and title

CA: reversed decision of CFI OCT of Chacon Enterprises null and void insofar as it covered the portion in litigation Declared Galasino et al. as owners; ordered Chacon Enterprises to reconvey the portion14. Chacon Enterprises filed MR Action filed by Galasino et al. was barred by prescription/laches

CA: denied motion Action instituted by Galasino et al. although denominated as one for reconveyance, is in essence an action to quiet title; imprescriptible

15. Chacon enterprises files instant petition for review

Issues:1. WON Galasino et al.s action is barred by prescription (NO)2. WON action is barred by laches (NO)3. WON OCT issued in favor of Chacon Enterprises should be cancelled (YES)

Ratio:1. Although action was denominated as one for annulment of title/ reconveyance, from the averments in the complaint, it is actually one for quieting of title, hence imprescriptible, Galasino et al. having actual possession Chacon Enterprises: more than 12 years had elapsed from the date its title was transcribed in the registration book of Register of Deeds up to the time Galasino et al. filed action for annulment and reconveyance If they anchored their action o the alleged fraud cause of action prescribed after 4 years from registration If it I based on implied or constructive trust, prescribed after 10 years from registration In either case, BARRED Galasino et al: real cause of action is actually for quieting of title; prescription does not lie

SC: While owner in fee continues liable to an action, proceeding, or suit upon the adverse claim, he has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its effects on his title, or to assert any superior equity in his favor He may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his rights Reason: his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim Galasino et al. were in actual possession at the time they filed action for annulment/reconveyance Deduced form the fact that Chacon Enterprises filed an ejectment suit and an action to recover possession tantamount to an admission that they were not in actual possession Galasino et al. have been in possession in concept of owners since 1920 (coconut trees were 20-40 years old)2. Not barred by laches Requisites:(1) Conduct on the part of defendant for which complainant seeks remedy(2) Delay in asserting right; complainant having knowledge or notice of defendants conduct and having been afforded opportunity to institute a suit(3) Lack of notice or knowledge that complainant would assert his right(4) Injury or prejudice on the part of defendant if relief be granted to complainant 2nd req. missing: records do not show that Galasino et al. had knowledge of Chacon Enterprises title prior to the ejectment suit filed by the latter. Former also immediately filed actions to assert their rights3. Yes, it should be cancelled. Its fraudulent misrepresentations in its application gives grounds for cancellation under Sec. 91 CA 141 Chacon Enterprises stated in their application that the area had no indication of settlement, occupation or improvement Sec. 91: statements made in the application are considered essential conditions and parts of any title issued on the basis of such application; any false statements therein shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the title. Director of Lands tasked to conduct investigations: existence of bad faith, fraud, etc. shall be presumed if the grantee of the land shall refuse to give direct and specific answers to pertinent questions in the investigation On the basis of said presumption title shall be cancelled without further proceedings Sec. 90 requires that applicant state under oath whether land is not occupied, improved, or cultivated

DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from AFFIRMED.

German Management v. CA (1989)Facts:1. Spouses Jose, residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia USA, are owners of a percel of land in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to Homestead Patent granted to them in 19482. 1982 Sps. Jose executed SPA athorizing German Management Services to develop their property into a residential subdivision3. German Management obtained Development Permit Finding that part of property was occupied by Villeza, Gernale, and 20 others, it advised occupants to vacate premises but they refused GM proceeded with the development which included portions occupied and cultivated by Villeza et al.4. Villeza et al. filed action for forcible entry They are mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan; they have occupied and tilled their farmholdings some 12 to 15 years from promulgation of PD 27 GM, under a permit from Office of Provincial Governor of Rizal, was allowed to improve the Barangay Road at Sitio Inarawan at its expense, subject to the condition that it shall secure the needed right of way from the owners of the lot to be affected Instead, it forcibly removed and destroyed the barbed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice; bulldozed the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees, and other crops by means of force, violence, and intimidation; it trespassed, coerced, and threatened to harass, remove, and eject them from their farmholdings

MTC: dismissed complaind for forcible entry

RTC: sustained dismissal

5. Villeza et al. filed petition for review with CA

CA: reversed decisions of MTC and RTC Since Villeza et al. were in actual possession at the time they were forcibly ejected, they have a right to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession

6. GM filed MR denied.7. Hence, instant petition.

Issues:WON Villeza et al. are entitled to file a forcible entry case (YES)

Ratio:Villeza et al. as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case because ownership is not an issue It is merely a quieting process and never determines the actual title to an estate At the time GM entered property, they were already in possession No evidence that Sps. Jose were ever in possession of subject property Villeza et al.s peacable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn and fruit bearing trees 12 to 15 years prior to GMs act of destroying their crops Although GM may validly claim ownership based on title it presented, evidence does not address issue of prior actual possession raised in forcible entry case Party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria Doctrine of self-help cannot be made the basis of GMs act of destroying crops Can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at bar When possession had already been lost, owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto

3) Right to Accession

Article 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or "movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears. (346a)

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

a) Discreta

Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. (353)

Article 441. To the owner belongs: (1) The natural fruits; (2) The industrial fruits; (3) The civil fruits. (354)

De Leon: Accession discrete right of the owner of the property by accession to everything which is produced by property Exceptions:1) Possession in good faith possessor in good faith entitled to fruits received before possession legally interrupted2) Usufruct 3) Lease of rural lands4) Pledge5) Antichresis creditor acquires right to receive fruits of an immovable of his debtor

i) Natural

Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals. Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. (355a)

Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation. (356) De Leon: Article applies where owner of property recovers the same from a possessor and possessor has not yet received the fruits, although they may have already been harvested; or possessor had already received fruits but is ordered to return the same to owner Owner is obliged to reimburse expenses incurred for production, gathering, and preservation Reason: expenses incurred by another inures to the benefit of owner unjust enrichment Effect of bad faith: Owner still has to reimburse even if possessor is in BF If fruits already harvestedpossessor returns fruits, but entitled to reimbursement of expenses If fruits have not been harvestedno reimbursement; but possessor in BF entitled to necessary expenses for preservation Owner may free himself of the expenses by permitting possessor to complete harvesting of fruits himself

Article 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother, although unborn. (357)

ii) Industrial Art. 442, supra.

iii) Civil Art. 442, supra.

b) Continua

i) Naturally incorporated

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. (358)

Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)

ii) Artificially incorporated

Article 457. 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. (336) De Leon: Alluvion accretion which the banks of rivers gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters and which belong to the owners of lands adjoining to said banks Accretion act or process by which a riparian (river bank) land gradually receives addition made by the water to which the land is contiguous; alluvion is brought about by accretion But the provision gives meaning to accretion as addition or increase received by land; used synonymously with alluvion Requisites: Deposit or accumulation of soil or sediment must be gradual and imperceptible Accretion results from the effects or action of the current of the water or river Land where accretion takes place must ne adjacent to the bank of river

Article 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. (367) De Leon: Pond body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a puddle and smaller than a lake, or like a body of water with a small outlet Lagoon small lake, fresh water, not very deep, fed by floods, hollow bed of which is bounded by elevations of land Lake body of water formed in depressions of the earth, fresh water, coming from rivers, brooks or springs, connected with the sea by them

Article 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. (368a) De Leon: Avulsion accretion which takes place when the current of a river, creek, or torrent, segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion and transfers it to another estate; owner of the estate to which the segregated portion belonged, retains the ownership thereof Distinguished from Alluvion:

AlluvionAvulsion

Deposit of soil gradualSudden or abrupt

Deposit of soil belongs to the owner of the property where the same was depositedOwner of the property from which a part was detached retains ownership thereof

Soil cannot be identifiedDetached portion can be identified

Requisites: Segregation and transfer must be caused by the current of a river, creek, or torrent River natural surface stream of water of considerable volume and permanent or seasonal flow Creek small islet extending further into the land; a natural stream of water normally smaller than and often tributary to a river Torrent violent stream of water as a flooded river or one suddenly raised by a heavy rain and descending a steep incline; raging flood or rushing stream of water Current continuous movement of a body of water, often horizontal, in a certain direction Segregation and transfer must be sudden or abrupt Portion of land transported must be known or identifiable

Article 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a safe place. (369a) Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed. (370a)De Leon: Requisites: There must be a natural change in the course of the waters of the river Change must be abrupt or sudden Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of public dominion. (372a) Article 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. (374) Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers belong to the State. (371a) Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof. (373a)

MOVABLE PROPERTY

a) Conjunction/adjunction

Article 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value. (375) Article 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection. (376) Article 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater volume. In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377) Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand their separation. Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer some injury. (378)

Article 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly appreciated. (n)

b) Commixtion/confusion

Article 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused. (381)

Article 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the preceding article. If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed. (382)

Article 475. Supra.

c) Specification

Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material for its value. If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or demand indemnity for the material. If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material. (383a)

Article 475. Supra.

EXCEPTIONS: FC

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership.(156a, 157a)

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.(158a)

16