property_lecture notes of atty waldemar gravador
TRANSCRIPT
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 1/269
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 2/269
• Property, Right to Property, and Ownership:
•
• 1. Property is an economic concept [ mass of thingsor objects useful to human activity] and necessaryto life.
•
• 2. Right to Property is the juridical tie by virtue ofwhich a person has the exclusive power to receiveor obtain all the benefits from a thing, except thoseprohibited or restricted by law or by the rights of
others.•
• 2. Distinction between right to property [ vinculumbetween a man and the thing] and ownership [
mass of rights over the thing] is more historical thanactual.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 3/269
• Concept of things and property:
•
• 1. Things are all objects that exist, and can be of some
use to man. This is more generic and extensive.
Property are all those that are already appropriated orare in the possession of man.
• 2. To be juridically considered as a thing or property,an object must have the following requisites: 1) Utility [capacity to satisfy human wants] 2) Individuality [ or,substance or a separate and autonomous existence]and 3) Susceptibility of being appropriated [ equivalentto occupation, which is the willfull apprehension of acorporeal object which has no owner, with intent toacquire its ownership].
•
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 4/269
Common Things:
Things which, as a whole mass, are not
susceptible of appropriation e.g. sun,
stars, the core of the earth, the sea, and
others called common things, are notthings or property in the juridical concept.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 5/269
RIGHTS AS PROPERTY:
Things, include not only material objects, butalso rights [ real rights- power belonging to aperson over a specific thing, without a passivesubject individually determined against whom suchright may be personally exercised. It gives to a
person direct and immediate juridical power over athing, which is susceptible of being exercised, notonly against a determinate person, but against thewhole world] [ personal rights- the power
belonging to a person to demand of another, as adefinite passive subject, the fulfillment of aprestation to give, to do, or not to do. Properlycalled right of obligation, or simply obligation]although these are relations and not objects.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 6/269
DIFFERENCES IN REGIME BETWEENMOVABLE AND IMMOVABLES:
• a. Solemnity is greater in acts relative toimmovables, e.g. donations
• b. Adverse Possession is longer forimmovables.
• c. Publicity and Recording are more importantfor immovables re: double sale, mortgage
of properties.• d. Capacity to alienate, greater capacity is
usually required for immovables.
• e. Venue is usually determined by the location
of the immovable.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 7/269
IMMOVABLES AND MOVABLES:
a. Par. 1. [ (1) Land, buildings, roads and
constructions of all kinds adhered to the
soil]
1. Separate treatment by the parties of
building from the land on which it stands
does not change the immovable characterof the building.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 8/269
1. While the building of strong materials in which therice-cleaning machinery was installed by the"Compañia Agricola Filipina" was real property, andthe mere fact that the parties seem to have dealtwith it separate and apart from the land onwhich it stood in no wise changed its character
as real property. It follows that neither the originalregistry in the chattel mortgage registry of theinstrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage ofthe building and the machinery installed therein, nor
the annotation in that registry of the sale of themortgaged property, had any effect whatever so faras the building was concerned. ( LEUNG YEE VS.STRONG MACHINERY 37 PHIL. 644)
•
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 9/269
2. Buildings on rented land- there areauthorities that buildings or constructions
placed on land by lessee do not becomeimmovable, where agreement gives thelessee the right to remove the building andimprovements.
3. Building or house sold to be demolishedimmediately, French court held the sale to beinvolving movable property.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 10/269
ANTONIO PUNZALAN et.al. vs.
REMEDIOS LACSAMANA et.al. G.R. No.
L-55729 MARCH 28, 1993FACTS:
Petitioner is owner of land situated in
Tarlac which he mortgaged to PNB in1963. This property was foreclosed. While
the land was still in possession of the
petitioner, he was allowed by PNB toconstruct a warehouse. In 1978, deed of
sale was executed between PNB and
herein respondent Lacsamana.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 11/269
Petitioner filed a suit impugning the validityof the sale of the building in the CFI of
Rizal. Respondent PNB filed a motion todismiss on the ground of improper venuebecause the suit involves a real property.
HELD:
The warehouse claimed to be owned bypetitioner is an immovable or real property
as provided in article 415(1) of the CivilCode. Buildings are always immovableunder the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 12/269
Code. A building treated separately from
the land on which it stood is immovableproperty and the mere fact that the parties
to a contract seem to have dealt with it
separate and apart from the land on whichit stood in no wise changed its character
as immovable property
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 13/269
4. Par. 2 [(2) Trees, plants, and growing
fruits, while they are attached to the landor form an integral part of an immovable ]
on ungathered fruits. Under the Chattel
Mortgage Law, ungathered fruits have thenature of personal property.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 14/269
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 15/269
6. Par. 4. [ (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 mannerthat it reveals the intention to attach them
permanently to the tenements] – immovable
by incorporation and destination
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 16/269
4.a. objects must be placed by the owneror by his agent. It becomes immobilizedonly when placed in the tenement by theowner of the tenement ( Davao Sawmill Co.vs. Castillo 61 Phil. 709).
4.b. When placed by a mere holder , e.g.tenant, usufructuary, or one with a temporaryright over the immovable, objects do notbecome immovable property, unless the
person acts as agent of the owner ( DavaoSawmill case, supra).
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 17/269
7. Par. No. 5. [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 whichtend directly to meet the needs of the said
industry or works]
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 18/269
5.a. immovable by destination, depends
upon their being destined for use in the
industry or work in the tenement ( BH.Berkenkotter. vs. Co Unjieng 61 Phil. 663)
5.b. Additional machinery installed by
the owner of a sugar central to improve
milling capacity is realty ( Berkenkotter vs.Cu Unjieng e Hijos, 61 Phil. 663).
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 19/269
Mindanao Bus . Company vs. City
Assesso r 116 Phil . 50 1, no realty tax is
due on machineries of a transportationcompany, such as welder, boring machine,
lathe machine, etc. sitting on a cement or
wooden platform, because they are notabsolutely essential to its transportation
business which is not carried on in a
building or specified land.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 20/269
Movables:
General Test of Movable Character:
1) Whether it can be carried from place to place, 2) whether the change of location
can be effected without injury to an
immovable to which the object may be
attached, and 3) whether the object is not
included in any of the ten paragraphs of
Article 415 .
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 21/269
By Special Provision:
e.g. Act No. 1508 recognizes that growing
crops are personal property and may be
the object of chattel mortgage see.
Section 7.
Forces of Nature:
e.g. electricity, gas, oxygen, light, rays.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 22/269
Consumables and Non-Consumables:
Consumable are those which cannot beused in a manner appropriate to their
nature without being consumed.
Non-consumables are those not consumed
by use.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 23/269
*Fungibles and Non-Fungibles:
1. Distinction between Fungible and Non-fungible.Fungible , quality of being fungible depends upontheir possibility ( because of their nature or thewill of the parties), of being substituted by othersof the same kind, not having a distinctindividuality ( e.g. ten heads of cattle, or 100copies of a newspaper of a given date)
Non-fungibles are those which have their ownindividuality and DO NOT admit of substitution
( e.g. ten bottles of wine in my room)
Note: This is a classification based on PURPOSE
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 24/269
PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE
PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
PUBLIC DOMINION
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 25/269
Dominion and Ownership:
1. Public dominion does not carry the
idea of ownership; property of public
dominion is not owned by the State, but
pertains to the State, which as territorialsovereign exercises certain juridical
prerogatives over such property.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 26/269
2. Ownership of property is in the social
group, whether national, provincial, ormunicipal. Their purpose is not to serve
the State as a juridical person, but the
citizens; they are intended for thecommon and public welfare, and so they
cannot be an object of appropriation,
either by the State or by private persons.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 27/269
Outside Commerce of Man:
Rule: Property of public dominion OUTSIDEthe commerce of man.
Principles:
1) They cannot be alienated or leased orotherwise be the subject matter of contracts.
2.) cannot be acquired by prescription against
the State. 3.) not subject to attachment and execution
4.) cannot be burdened by voluntaryeasement.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 28/269
CASES:
Mun icipal i ty o f Cavi te vs. Rojas , 30 Phil.20 [The said Plaza Soledad being apromenade for public use, the municipalcouncil of Cavite could not in 1907 withdrawor exclude from public use a portion thereof
in order to lease it for the sole benefit of thedefendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portionof said plaza or public place to the defendantfor private use the plaintiff municipality
exceeded its authority in the exercise of itspowers by executing a contract over a thingof which it could not dispose, nor is itempowered so to do.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 29/269
* Ignacio v. Directo r o f Lands , 108 Phil.
335
On January 25, 1950, Ignacio filed an
application for the registration of a parcel
of land (mangrove), situated in barrioGasac, Navotas, Rizal, with an area of
37,877 square meters. Later, he amended
his application by alleging among othersthat he owned the parcel applied for by
right of accretion.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 30/269
HELD:
The article cited is clearly inapplicable
because it refers to accretion or
deposits on the banks of rivers, while
the accretion in the present case wascaused by action of the Manila Bay.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 31/269
ON “FORESHORE” LANDS:
“Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987Constitution, the foreshore and submerged areasof Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the publicdomain, waters x x x and other natural resources"and consequently "owned by the State." As such,
foreshore and submerged areas "shall not bealienated," unless they are classified as"agricultural lands" of the public domain. The merereclamation of these areas by PEA does not
convert these inalienable natural resources of theState into alienable or disposable lands of thepublic domain” ( See: FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZvs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY G.R. No.133250 July 9, 2002)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 32/269
* Laurel vs. Garcia G.R. No. 92013 July 25,1990
1. The subject property in this case is one of thefour (4) properties in Japan acquired by thePhilippine government under the Reparations
Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9,
1956.
2. Petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongiproperty and the related lots were acquired as part
of the reparations from the Japanese governmentfor diplomatic and consular use by the Philippinegovernment. Vice-President Laurel states that theRoppongi property is classified as one of public
dominion, and not of private ownership under
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 33/269
ISSUE: Can the Roppongi property and othersof its kind be alienated by the PhilippineGovernment?
HELD:
1. The nature of the Roppongi lot as propertyfor public service is expressly spelled out. It isdictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract ofprocurement which bind both the Philippine
government and the Japanese government. As property of public dominion, the Roppongilot is outside the commerce of man. It cannotbe alienated.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 34/269
2. Applying Articles 419, 420, the SCruled: The Roppongi property is correctly
classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420
of the Civil Code as property belonging tothe State and intended for some public
service.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 35/269
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE INTENTION OFTHE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CHANGEDBECAUSE THE LOT HAS BEEN IDLE FOR
SOME YEARS? OR, WHETHER IT HASBECOME PATRIMONIAL?
The fact that the Roppongi site has not beenused for a long time for actual Embassyservice does not automatically convert it topatrimonial property. Any such conversionhappens only if the property is withdrawn frompublic use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v.Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 (19751). A propertycontinues to be part of the public domain, notavailable for private appropriation or ownership"until there is a formal declaration on the part ofthe government to withdraw it from being such
(Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335[1960]).
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 36/269
We emphasize, however, that anabandonment of the intention to use the
Roppongi property for public service andto make it patrimonial property underArticle 422 of the Civil Code must bedefinite. Abandonment cannot be inferred
from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government'sown deliberate and indubitable will but to alack of financial support to repair and improve
the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v.Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonmentmust be a certain and positive act based oncorrect legal premises.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 37/269
*Mani la Internat ional A irpo rt Authori ty vs .Court o f Appeals et.al. G.R. No. 155650 Ju ly20, 2006
On 1 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and
injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction ortemporary restraining order. The petition soughtto restrain the City of Parañaque from imposingreal estate tax on, levying against, and auctioningfor public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 38/269
RULING:
First , MIAA is not a government-owned orcontrolled corporation but an
instrumentality of the National
Government and thus exempt from localtaxation. Second, the real properties of
MIAA are owned by the Republic of the
Philippines and thus exempt from real
estate tax.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 39/269
a. A irpor t Lands and Bui ld ings are of
Publ ic Dom in ion
The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA
are property of pub l ic dom in ion andtherefore owned by the State or the
Republ ic o f the Phi l ipp ines .
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 40/269
The A irpor t Lands and Bui ld ings are
devo ted to publ ic use because they are
used by the pub l ic fo r international anddomest ic travel and
transportat ion . The fact that the MIAA
co l lects term inal fees and other chargesfrom the publ ic does not remove the
character o f the Airpo r t Lands and
Bui ld ings as propert ies for pub l ic
use. The operat ion by the government
of a to l lway does not change the
character of the road as one for pub l ic
use. S
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 41/269
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY vs.CITY OF ILOILO G.R. No. 109791 July
14, 2003
“Concededly, "ports constructed by theState" are properties of the publicdominion, as Article 420 of the Civil Codeenumerates these as properties "intendedfor public use." It must be stressed
however that what is being taxed in thepresent case is petitioner’s warehouse,which, although located within the port, isdistinct from the port itself.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 42/269
. In Light Rail Transit Authority v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals et al .,22 petitioner thereinsimilarly sought an exemption from real estatetaxes on its passenger terminals, arguing that saidproperties are considered as part of the "publicroads," which are classified as property of publicdominion in the Civil Code.23 We ruled therein that:
…[T]he properties of petitioner are not exclusivelyconsidered as public roads being improvementsplaced upon the public road, and this [separable]nature of the structure in itself physicallydistinguishes it from a public road. Considering
further that carriageways or passenger terminalsare elevated structures which are not freelyaccessible to the public, vis-à-vis roads which arepublic
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 43/269
On subdivision road lots:
WOODRIDGE SCHOOL INC. et.al. vs. ARBCONSTRUCTION INC. G.R. No. 157285February 16, 2007
In the case of Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that “the road lots in aprivate subdivision are private property,hence, the local government should firstacquire them by donation, purchase, or
expropriation, if they are to be utilized as apublic road.” Otherwise, they remain to beprivate properties of the owner-developer.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 44/269
Contrary to the position of petitioners, the useof the subdivision roads by the generalpublic does not strip it of its privatecharacter. The road is not converted intopublic property by mere tolerance of thesubdivision owner of the public’s passage
through it. To repeat, “the local governmentshould first acquire them by donation,purchase, or expropriation, if they are to beutilized as a public road.”
Likewise, we hold the trial court in error whenit ruled that the subject road is public propertypursuant to Section 2 of Presidential Decree
No. 1216.
OWNERSHIP
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 45/269
OWNERSHIP
Definition of Ownership:
1. The independent and general power of aperson over a thing for purposes recognized
by law and within the limits establishedthereby.
2. A relation in private law by virtue of which athing pertaining to one person is completelysubjected to his will in everything notprohibited by public law or the concurrence
with the rights of another.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 46/269
Rights of an Owner:
Right to enjoy, right to dispose, and the
right to recover or vindicate
Enjoy: right to possess, right to use, and
right to the fruits
Dispose: right to consume or destroy or
abuse, right to encumber or alienate
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 47/269
Actions to Recover:
1. For personal property- Replevin under Rule60, Rules of Court
2. For Real Property: Forcible Entry and
Unlawful Detainer under Rule 70 , 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure:
Accion Publiciana- the plenary right to recover
possessesion.
Accion Reinvidicatoria- an action torecover ownership.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 48/269
Roman Law:
Jus possidendi-right to possess
Jus utendi-right to use
Just fruendi-right to the fruits
-natural, industrial,and civil
Jus abutendi-right to consume
Jus disponendi-right to dispose Jus vindicandi-right to recover
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 49/269
ACTIONS TO RECOVER:
Can an action reinvindicatoria be filed even ifthe plaintiff is in actual possession of theproperty?
Answer: Yes
IGLESIA NI CRISTO et.al. vs. HON. THELMAPONFERRADA et.al. G.R. No. 168943OCTOBER 27, 2006
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 50/269
Facts:
In October 2001, Enrique Santos et.al filed acomplaint for quieting of title and/or accionreinvidincatoria against Iglesia ni Cristo. Theyalleged that they are owner of a 936 sq.m.
parcel of land in Tandang Sora, Quezon Citywhich they inherited from Enrique Sr.
Iglesia filed a motion to dismiss contending that
the action has prescribed. It appears that it wasable to obtain a TCT over the same parcel ofland way back in 1984-the year when the titlewas issued in their favor.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 51/269
In support of its contention, Iglesia contended that theaccion reinvindicatoria presupposes that the plaintiffis not in actual possession of the property he seeks to
recover. Thus, this is true in this case because it(iglesia) was in possession of the property in 1984when the title was issued to it.
HELD:
Petitioner’s claim that it had been in actual or materialpossession of the property since 1984 when TCT No.321744 was issued in its favor is belied by theallegations in the complaint that respondents hadbeen in actual and material possession of theproperty since 1961 up to the time they filed theircomplaint on October 24, 2001.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 52/269
Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternativereinvindicatory action against petitioner. An accionreinvindicatoria does not necessarily presuppose that
the actual and material possession of the property ison defendant and that plaintiff seeks the recovery ofsuch possession from defendant. It bears stressingthat an accion reinvindicatoria is a remedy seekingthe recovery of ownership and includes jus
possidendi , jus utendi , and jus fruendi as well. It isan action whereby a party claims ownership over aparcel of land and seeks recovery of its fullpossession. Thus, the owner of real property inactual and material possession thereof may file anaccion reinvindicatoria against another seekingownership over a parcel of land including jusvindicandi , or the right to exclude defendants from thepossession thereof.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 53/269
In this case, respondents filed an alternative
reinvindicatory action claiming ownership
over the property and the cancellation of TCTNo. 321744 under the name of petitioner. In
fine, they sought to enforce their jus utendi
and jus vindicandi when petitioner claimedownership and prevented them from fencing
the property.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 54/269
Limitations on the right of ownership:
1. Limitations imposed for the benefit of
the State- police power [ e.g. SECTION.
16. ( Republic Act No. 7160) General
Welfare. - eminent domain; and Taxation
2 Li it ti i d b th L l l
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 55/269
2. Limitations imposed by the Law- legaleasement of waters [Art. 637. Lower estates areobliged to receive the waters which naturally and
without the intervention of man descend from thehigher estates, as well as the stones or earth whichthey carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot constructworks which will impede this easement; neither can
the owner of the higher estate make works whichwill increase the burden.] (552) ] or legaleasement of right of way [Art. 649. The owner, orany person who by virtue of a real right maycultivate or use any immovable, which is
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to otherpersons and without adequate outlet to a publichighway, is entitled to demand a right of waythrough the neighboring estates, after payment ofthe proper indemnity]
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 56/269
3. Limitations imposed by the owner - e.g.lease/pledge
4. Limitations imposed by the grantor - donor mayprohibit partition [ e.g. Art. 1083. Every co-heir hasa right to demand the division of the estate unlessthe testator should have expressly forbidden itspartition, in which case the period of indivision shallnot exceed twenty years as provided in article 494.This power of the testator to prohibit divisionapplies to the legitime.
Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-
ownership terminates when any of the causes forwhich partnership is dissolved takes place, orwhen the court finds for compelling reasons thatdivision should be ordered, upon petition of one ofthe co-heirs. ](1051a) ]
P i i l f “S lf H l ” ( ARTICLE 429 f
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 57/269
Principle of “Self -Help” ( ARTICLE 429 of
the Civil Code)
1. This authorizes the lawful possessor to
USE FORCE, not only to prevent a
threatened unlawful invasion or usurpationthereof.
2. Qualification to the rule that a personshould not take the law in his own hands.
It is lawful to repel force by force.
3 Actual invasion of property may consist of a
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 58/269
3. Actual invasion of property may consist of amere disturbance of possession or of a realdispossession. Mere disturbance of possession [ force may be used against it at any time as longas it continues, even beyond the prescriptiveperiod for an action of forcible entry e.g. if a ditchis opened by Pedro in the land of Juan, Juan mayclose it or cover it by force any time.]
4. If, however, invasion consists of realdispossession [ force to REGAIN possession canbe used only immediately after the dispossession]In other words, once the usurper’s possession
has become firm by the lapse of time, thelawful possessor must resort to the competentauthority to recover his property.
C
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 59/269
Case:
* German Management & Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals G.R. No. 76216 and 76217 September 14, 1989.
Private respondents, claiming to be mountainside farmers ofSitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal and members of theConcerned Citizens of Farmer's Association, alleged that
petitioner deprived private respondents of their property withoutdue process of law by: (1) forcibly removing and destroying thebarbed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice;(2) bulldozing the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees and other cropsof private respondents by means of force, violence andintimidation, in violation of P. D. 1038 and (3) trespassing,coercing and threatening to harass, remove and eject privaterespondents from their respective farmholdings in violation ofP.D. Nos. 316, 583, 815, and 1028.
HELD
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 60/269
HELD:
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that at
the time petitioner entered the property,private respondents were already inpossession thereof. There is no evidencethat the spouses Jose were ever in
possession of the subject property. On thecontrary, private respondents' peaceablepossession was manifested by the factthat they even planted rice, corn and fruitbearing trees twelve to fifteen years priorto petitioner's act of destroying their crops.
Both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 61/269
Both the Municipal Trial Court and the RegionalTrial Court have rationalized petitioner's drasticaction of bulldozing and destroying the crops of private respondents on the basis of the doctrine ofself-help enunciated in Article 429 of the New CivilCode. Such justification is unavailing because thedoctrine of self-help can only be exercised at thetime of actual or threatened dispossession whichis absent in the case at bar . When possessionhas already been lost, the owner mus t reso rt to jud ic ial process for the recovery o f property. This is clear from Article 536 of the Civil Codewhich states, "(In) no case may possession be
acquired through force or intimidation as long asthere is a possessor who objects thereto. He whobelieves that he has an action or right to depriveanother of the holding of a thing, must invoke theaid of the competent court, if the holder should
refuse to deliver the things.
EXTENT OF OWNERSHIP d REGALIAN
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 62/269
EXTENT OF OWNERSHIP and REGALIANDOCTRINE ( Article 437 of the Civil Code)
Extent of Ownership:
Extent of ownership: Horizontal ly , ownershipextends up to the boundaries; vert ical ly ,extends below the surface and above it to theextent required by the economic interest orutility to the owner , in relation to theexploitation that may be made of the property.( e.g. land traversed by power lines)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 63/269
CASES:
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.
LUCMAN IBRAHIM et.al. G.R. No. 168732,
June 29, 2007
“Thus, the ownership of land extends to thesurface as well as to the subsoil under it. In
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
this principle was applied to show that rightsover lands are indivisible and, consequently,
require a definitive and categorical classification,
thus:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 64/269
“The Court of Appeals justified this by sayingthere is “no conflict of interest” between the
owners of the surface rights and the owners ofthe sub-surface rights. This is rather strangedoctrine, for it is a well-known principle that theowner of a piece of land has rights not only to its
surface but also to everything underneath andthe airspace above it up to a reasonable height.Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classifiedas mineral underneath and agricultural on the
surface, subject to separate claims of title. Thisis also difficult to understand, especially in itspractical application.
U d th th f th d t t th f
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 65/269
Under the theory of the respondent court, the surfaceowner will be planting on the land while the mininglocator will be boring tunnels underneath. The farmer
cannot dig a well because he may interfere with themining operations below and the miner cannot blast atunnel lest he destroy the crops above. How deepcan the farmer, and how high can the miner gowithout encroaching on each others rights? Where is
the dividing line between the surface and the sub-surface rights?
The Court feels that the rights over the land areindivisible and that the land itself cannot be halfagricultural and half mineral. The classification mustbe categorical; the land must be either completelymineral or completely agricultural.
HIDDEN TREASURE
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 66/269
HIDDEN TREASURE
Concept of Hidden Treasure: 1. Consist of money, jewels, or precious
objects [ movables only – Tolentino e.g.
prehistoric tomb excluded except themovables found therein], and 2) they arehidden and unknown, such that their findingis a real discovery.
2. Owner unknown e.g. only if the thing hasbeen considered lost and the owner hasalready abandoned it.
Wh “ t ”
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 67/269
Who are “strangers”:
Anyone who has absolutely no right over the
immovable or the thing in which the treasure
is found but INCLUDES also lessee,usufructuary, or a paid laborer working for
the owner of the land [ provided he has not
been engaged precisely to look for hiddentreasure]
Fi d titl d t h
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 68/269
Finder entitled to share:
A finder is entitled to one-half (1/2) , provided:
finding is by chance ( not purposely sought) seehowever: opinion of Jurado where finding by chancemay also include cases “by a stroke of good fortune”. ( a finder ordered by the landowner to search is notentitled)
finder is not a co-owner of the property where it is found finder not a trespasser
finder not an agent of the landowner
finder not married under the absolute community or
conjugal partnership otherwise his share belongs tothe community [Article 117 (4), Family Code: The shareof either spouse in the hidden treasure which the lawawards to the finder or owner of the property where thetreasure is found formed part of conjugal partnership properties]
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 69/269
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Accession:
Accession is the right of a property to everything which is:
a) produced thereby ( accession discreta)
b) incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or
artificially
b.1. natural accession ( accession natural)
b.2. artificial accession ( accession artificial oraccession industrial)
Classification of Accession:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 70/269
Classification of Accession:
A. Discreta: natural, industrial, and civil fruits
B. Continua: may refer to immovables ormovables
- immovables: alluvion ( deposits), force of river ( avulsion), change of river bed , formation of
islands, and building, planting and sowing .
- movables: conjunction or adjunction;specification; and, commixtion
BASIS OF ACCESSION:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 71/269
BASIS OF ACCESSION:
1. Accession discreta-based on principles of justice[ itis only “just” that the owner of a thing should also ownwhatever it produces, unless there is some specialreason for a contrary resolution]
2. Accession continua-based on necessity and utility
[ it being practical that the owner of the principal thingshould own the new things instead of a co-ownershipbeing established , e.g. giving riparian the right to
own accretion which they gradually receive from theeffects of the current of the waters]
Basic principles governing the doctrine of
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 72/269
Basic principles governing the doctrine ofaccession:
The owner of a thing belongs theextension or increase of such thing
This extension of the right of ownership isrealized, as a general rule, under the juridical
principle that the accessory follows theprincipal.
This incorporation of the accessory with theprincipal, saving the exceptions provided by
law, is effected only when two th ings are soun ited that they cannot be separatedw i thou t in jur ing or destroy ing the ju r id ical natu re o f one o f them .
CONCEPT OF “FRUITS” ( Article 441)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 73/269
CONCEPT OF “FRUITS” ( Article 441)
Concept of Fruits:
All products of or income from a thing, in
accordance with its economic purpose, so
long as they do not bring about any essential
alteration thereof.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 74/269
Kinds of Fruits:
1. natural fruits [ spontaneous products of the
soil, young, and other products of animals]
2. industrial fruits [ produced by lands of any
kind through cultivation or labor];
How about “cultivated trees”? Strictly speaking
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 75/269
How about cultivated trees ? Strictly speaking,they are not fruits for they are really immovablesas long as they are attached to the land, and
they may produce fruits in themselves.
But they may be considered as “fruits” whenthey are expressly cultivated or exploited to
carry on an industry ( Paras, citing Manresa).
3. civil fruits [ rents of buildings, price of leasesof lands, other property and the amount ofperpetual or life annuities or other similarincome]
Exceptions to Rule [ that the owner owns the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 76/269
Exceptions to Rule [ that the owner owns thefruits]:
1. Possession in Good Faith by another [
fruits belong to the possessor in good faith].
2. Usufruct [ usufructuary gets the fruits]
3. Lease [ lessee gets the fruits from theproperty directly, although the owner receivescivil fruits in the form of rents paid by thelessess];
4 A ti h i [ dit t th f it ] [A t
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 77/269
4. Antichresis [creditor gets the fruits] [Art.
2132. By the contract of antichresis the
creditor acquires the right to receive the fruitsof an immovable of his debtor, with the
obligation to apply them to the payment of
the interest, if owing, and thereafter to theprincipal of his credit. (1881) ]
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 78/269
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT
TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Rule:
Whatever is built, planted or sown on theland of another and the improvements or
repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of
the land.
Rights of Owner of Materials: ( Article 447)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 79/269
Rights of Owner of Materials: ( Article 447)
1. Owner of the materials used by anotherdoes not become a part owner of the thing
constructed with his materials. He is only
entitled to recover their value.
2. According to Tolentino, the owner cannot
return the materials instead of paying theirvalue.
When property is Alienated:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 80/269
When property is Alienated:
When property is alienated and the
improvements thereon, action of owner of
materials shall be against owner of theland and not against the vendee.(
presumably because consideration for the
sale already includes value of improvements)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 81/269
ARTICLE 448
Reason for the provision:
The reason for this article is to prevent the
creation of a forced co-ownership.
RULE: Owner of the land on which anything has
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 82/269
RULE: Owner of the land on which anything hasbeen built, planted, or sown in good faith hasOPTION:
a) to acquire the improvements after payment ofthe proper indemnity [Art. 546. Necessaryexpenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but
only the possessor in good faith may retain the thinguntil he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to thepossessor in good faith with the same right ofretention, the person who has defeated him in thepossession having the option of refunding the amountof the expenses]
or of paying the increase in value which the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 83/269
or of paying the increase in value which thething may have acquired by reason thereof.(453a) ] [Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxuryor mere pleasure shall not be refunded to thepossessor in good faith; but he may removethe ornaments with which he has
embellished the principal thing if it suffers noinjury thereby, and if his successor in thepossession does not prefer to refund theamount expended. (454) ]
b) to oblige builder or planter to pay forthe land and the sower the proper rent.
Wh h th “OPTION”
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 84/269
Who has the “OPTION”:
It is the owner of the land which has the
option: principle of accession, he is entitled
to the ownership of the accessory thing.
Only permanent constructions are
contemplated.
CASE:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 85/269
CASE:
Sarm iento vs . Agana 129 SCRA 122
( Owner of land must exercise the option, he
can only ask for demolition of improvement,
if, after having chosen to compel builder or
planter to buy land, the latter fails to pay).
A li ti f th A ti l
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 86/269
Application of the Article:
Good faith in building. Applies to a case
where one builds, plants, or sows on land
in which he believes himself to have a
claim of title. It does not apply where theonly interest of the builder, planter, or sower
is that of a holder, such as a tenant.
Balucanag vs Judge Franc isco G R No L
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 87/269
Balucanag vs . Judge Franc isco G.R. No. L -
34199, May 30, 1983
( Article 448 does not apply to a case of aLessee)
But even in the absence of said st ipu lat ion ,
respondent Stohner cannot be considered a
bu i lder in good fai th. A rt ic le 448 of the Civi l
Code, rel ied upon by respondent judge,
app l ies only to a case where one bu i lds on
land in the bel ief that he is the ow ner thereof
and i t does not app ly where one's on ly
interest in the land is that of a lessee under a
rental contract .
Floreza vs Evangelista 96 SCRA 130
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 88/269
Floreza vs . Evangelista, 96 SCRA 130
[G.R. No . L-25462 February 21, 1980]
( Said codal provision applies only when the
builder, planter, or sower believes he had the
right so to build, plant or sow because hethinks he owns the land or believes himself
to have a claim of title.)
S D l C Ab i 160
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 89/269
Spouses Del Campo vs. Abesia 160
SCRA 379 [G.R. No. L-49219 Apri l 15,
1988.*]
(However, when, as in this case, the co-
ownership is terminated by the partition andit appears that the house of defendants
overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 square
meters of the land pertaining to plaintiffswhich the defendants obviously built in good
faith)
OTHER (NEW) CASES:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 90/269
( )
PNB vs. DE JESUS G.R. No. 149295 September
23, 2003 { Equally significant is the fact that thebuilding, constructed on the land by Ignacio, has inactuality been part of the property transferred topetitioner. Article 448, of the Civil Code refers to a
piece of land whose ownership is claimed by two ormore parties, one of whom has built some works (orsown or planted something) and not to a case wherethe owner of the land is the builder, sower, or
planter who then later loses ownership of theland by sale or otherwise for, elsewise stated,“where the true owner himself is the builder ofworks on his own land, the issue of good faith orbad faith is entirely irrelevant.” }
PARILLA et al VS PILAR G R No 167680
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 91/269
PARILLA et .al. VS. PILAR G.R. No . 167680
November 30, 2006 { Jurisprudence is
replete with cases[21] which categoricallydeclare that Article 448 covers only cases in
which the builders, sowers or planters
believe themselves to be owners of the landor, at least, have a claim of title thereto, but
not when the interest is merely that of a
holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or
usufructuary. A tenant cannot be said to be a
builder in good faith as he has no pretension
to be owner.[22]
In a plethora of cases [23] this Court has held
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 92/269
In a plethora of cases,[23] this Court has held
that Articles 448 of the Civil Code, in relation
to Article 546 of the same Code, whichallows full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises
until reimbursement is made, applies only toa possessor in good faith, i.e., one who
builds on land with the belief that he is the
owner thereof. It does not apply where one’s
only interest is that of a lessee under a
rental contract; otherwise, it would always be
in the power of the tenant to “improve” his
landlord out of his property}
ISMAEL MACASAET et.al. vs . SPOUSES
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 93/269
MACASAET G.R. Nos. 154391-92 September 30,2004
“This Court has ruled that this provision covers onlycases in which the builders, sowers or plantersbelieve themselves to be owners of the land or, atleast, to have a claim of title thereto. It does not applywhen the interest is merely that of a holder, such as amere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From thesepronouncements, good faith is identified by the belief
that the land is owned; or that -- by some title -- onehas the right to build, plant, or sow thereon.
H i i l thi C t h d
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 94/269
However, in some special cases, this Court has used
Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyond this
limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia,[68] this provision was applied to one whose
house -- despite having been built at the time he
was still co-owner -- overlapped with the land of
another.[69] This article was also applied to caseswherein a builder had constructed improvements
with the consent of the owner. The Court ruled that
the law deemed the builder to be in good faith.[70]
In Sarmiento v. Agana,[71] the builders were found
to be in good faith despite their reliance on the
consent of another, whom they had mistakenly
believed to be the owner of the land.[72]
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 95/269
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article
448 applies to the present factual
milieu. The established facts of this caseshow that respondents fully consented to the
improvements introduced by petitioners. In
fact, because the children occupied the lots
upon their invitation, the parents certainly
knew and approved of the construction of the
improvements introduced thereon. Thus,
petitioners may be deemed to have been ingood faith when they built the structures on
those lots.
RIGHT BEFORE PAYMENT:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 96/269
1. Builder has right of retention. The rightof retention extends NOT ONLY to the
IMPROVEMENTS, but also to the LAND.
2. Neither of the parties may bring a
reinvindicatory action against the other.
Landowner has no right to ask for rents fromthe builder.
3.After the owner of the land chooses to
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 97/269
compel the builder or planter to pay for theland or the sower the proper rent, the latter
w i l l lose r igh t of retent ion if he fails to pay asrequired .
4. In the event of failure of the builder to payafter landowner has opted to sell the land,the latter is entitled to removal ofimprovements.
5. If, in the meantime, improvements is gutted
by fire, right of retention is extinguished.
Manotok Realty v s. Tecson 164 SCRA 587-
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 98/269
y 6 SC 58
Since the improvements have been gutted by
fire, and therefore, the basis for privaterespondent's right to retain the premises has
already been extinguished without the fault of
the petitioner, there is no other recourse for
the private respondent but to vacate the
premises and deliver the same to herein
petitioner.
Fil ipinas Co lleges Inc. vs . Timbang G.R.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 99/269
No L-12812 September 29, 1959 (Upon
failure of builder to pay the value of land, the
landowner DOES NOT necessarily become
AUTOMATICALLY THE OWNER OF
IMPROVEMENTS under Article 445.)
There is nothing in the language of these
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 100/269
g g g
two article, 448 and 546, which would
justify the conclusion of appellants that,upon the failure of the builder to pay the
value of the land, when such is demanded
by the land-owner, the latter becomes
automatically the owner of the
improvement under Article 445.
Remedies of the parties are:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 101/269
p
1….. and then they decide to leave things asthey are and assume the relat ion of lessor
and lessee , and should they disagree as to theamount of rental then they can go to the court to
fix that amount.
2. Court approved the sale of the land andthe improvement in a public auction applyingthe proceeds thereof first to the payment of thevalue of the land and the excess, if any, to bedelivered to the owner of the house in payment
thereof.
Alternatives granted to OWNER OF LAND when
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 102/269
Builder etc. in Bad Faith:
1. Appropriate what has been built, planted, orsown in bad faith, without any obligation toINDEMNIFY.
2. Ask the builder, planter, or sower to removewhat he has built, planted, or sown.
3. Compel builder or planter to pay the value ofthe land or the sower the proper rent.
Necessary Expenses: ( Article 452)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 103/269
y p ( )
As regards necessary expenses, builder,planter, or sower is entitled to be reimbursed,
although, he loses the accessory or
improvement.
What are “necessary expenses”?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 104/269
y p
Necessary expenses are those made for thepreservation of the property or thing upon
which they have been expended e.g. dike to
preserve from destruction caused by blood.
Conversely, that those that merely “augment”
the thing like expenses for the leveling of theland are not necessary expenses.
RIPARIAN OWNER:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 105/269
Rule:
Owners of lands adjoining the banks of
rivers [RIPARIAN OWNER] belong theaccretion which they gradually receive from
the effects of the current of the waters.(
alluvion) [accession discreta].
Reason:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 106/269
Reason:
Owners adjoining banks of rivers areexposed to floods and other damages due to
the destructive force of the waters and if by
virtue of law, they are subject toencumbrances, it is only just that such risks
and dangers should in some way be
compensated.
Requisites for “Alluvion”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 107/269
q
1) the deposit be gradual and imperceptible 2) it be made through the effects of the
current of the water ( deposits by human
intervention not included) and 3) the landwhere accretion takes place is adjacent to
the banks of rivers.
Ign acio vs. Directo r of L and s and Valer iano
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 108/269
Ign acio vs. Directo r of Land s and Valer iano[L -12958 May 30, 1960 May 30, 1960]
( Riparian accretion should be distinguishedfrom the accretion due to sea water. In the lattercase, the accretion is a public land)
De Buyser vs . Directo r o f lands, et al. [G.R.No . L -22763 March 18, 1983] March 18,1983
( Land formed by accretion from the sea is partof the public domain. It cannot be acquired byadverse possession. It is outside the commerceof man unless otherwise declared by theexecutive and legislative branch of the
Grande, et al. vs. Hon. Court o f Appeals,
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 109/269
et al. [G.R. No . L-17652 June 30, 1962]
June 30, 1962
[An accretion to land covered by Torrens title
does not automatically become registeredland. It must be registered. If not registered,
it is subject to acquisition through
prescription by third persons.]
AVULSION: ( Article 459)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 110/269
Art. 459. Whenever the cu rrent o f a river,creek o r torrent segregates from an estate
on i ts bank a known por t ion o f land and
transfers it to ano ther estate, the owner ofthe land to which the segregated port ion
belonged retains the ownersh ip o f i t ,
prov ided that he removes the same with in
two years.
Transfer by Other Forces:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 111/269
y
A known portion of land may be transferredfrom one tenement to another by other forces
of nature than the current of a river, e.g. land
from a mountain slope rolls down to anothertenement. Present article may be applied by
analogy.
CHANGE OF RIVER BED:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 112/269
CHANGE OF RIVER BED:
Rule:
River beds which are abandoned thru natural
change in the course of the waters ipso facto
belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion tothe area lost. However, the owners of the
lands adjoin ing the old bed shal l have the
r ight to acquire the same by paying thevalue thereof, which value shal l no t
exceed the value of the area occup ied by
the new bed.
Provision of the Water Code of the Philippines [ PD 1067]:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 113/269
Art. 58. – When a river or stream suddenly changes its course to
traverse private lands, the owner of the affected lands may notcompel the government to restore the river to its former bed; norcan they restrain the government from taking steps to revert theriver or stream to its former course. The owner of the lands thusaffected are not entitled to compensation for any damagesustained thereby. However, the former owners of the new bed
shal l be the owners of the abandoned bed in pro port ion tothe area lost b y each.
The owners of the affected lands may undertake to return the
river or stream to its old bed at their own expense; Provided, thata permit therefore is secured from the Secretary of Public Works [Transportaion and Communication] and works commenced withintwo years from the change in the course of the river or stream.,
THREE TYPES OF ACCESSION WITH
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 114/269
RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY:
Adjunction
Mixture ( commixtion or confusion)
Specification
Art. 467. The princ ipal th ing , as between twothings inco rpo rated is deemed to be that to
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 115/269
th ings inco rpo rated, is deemed to be that towhich the other has been uni ted as an
ornament, o r for its use or perfect ion . (376)
Criteria to Determine Principal:
Order of Preference in determining which is theprincipal and which is the accessory: 1. That ofthe importance or purpose of the things asstated in this article 2) That of their value 3)That of their volume.
Rules:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 116/269
1. Owner of accessory thing in bad faith, heshall lose the thing incorporated.
-he shall have obligation to indemnifyowner of principal thing.
2. Owner of the principal is the one in bad faith,owner of accessory may choose: 1) compelling
principal to pay the value of accessory thing or 2) thing belonging to him be separated,even if it be necessary to destroy the principalthing. Damages are available in both cases.
ADJUNCTION MIXTURE SPECIFICATION
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 117/269
1. Involves at least
two (2) things.
2.As a rule, accessory
follows the principal
3. the things joined
retain their nature
1. involves at least
two (2) things.
2. As a rule, co-
ownership results
3. the things mixed
or confused may
either retain or lose
their respectivenature
1. may involve only
one things ( MAY
BE MORE) but
form is changed.
2. As a rule, accessoryfollows the principal
3. the new object retains
or preserves the natureof the original object
QUIETING OF TITLE ( N)
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 118/269
Quieting of Title- purpose: the quieting of title orremoval of a cloud therefrom when there is anapparently valid or effective instrument orother claim which in reality is void,ineffective, voidable or unenforceable.
Originated from equity jurisprudence reasons:1) prevention of litigation 2) protection of thetrue title and possession 3) real interest of bothparties, and that of right and justice, whichrequire that the precise state of the title beknown.
Difference between “an action to quiet title”
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 119/269
from a suit “ to remove cloud”
To quiet title-an action for the purpose of
putting an end to vexatious litigation in
respect to the property involved.
To remove cloud -to procure cancellation,
delivery of, release of an instrument,encumbrance, or claim constituting a claim
on plaintiff’s title
Application:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 120/269
1. Applies only in the case of real property.
2. The matter complained of must have primafacie appearance of validity, therefore, wheninvalid or inefficacious on its face, an actionto remove cloud on title does not exist.
Examples: title procured by fraud, deceit,forged instrument, taxes levied on exemptproperty etc.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO FILE AN
ACTION TO QUIET TITLE
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 121/269
ACTION TO QUIET TITLE:
Prescription of the right to quiet title:
Plaintiff is in possession, the ACTIONDOES NOT prescribe.
Plaintiff is NOT in possession, the ACTIONMAY PRESCRIBE.
Gallar vs . Husain G.R.No. L-20954 May 29, 1967
B th d li f i f th l d A il 2
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 122/269
By the delivery of possession of the land on April 2,1919 the sale was consummated and title was
transferred to the appellee. Indeed, this action is notfor specific performance; all it seeks is to quiet title, 6to remove the cloud cast on appellee's ownership asa result of appellant's refusal to recognize the sale
made by the predecessor. And, as plaintiff-appellee isin possession of the land, the action isimprescriptible. 7 Appellant's argument that the actionhas prescribed would be correct if they were in possession as the action to quiet title would then bean action for recovery of real property which must bebrought within the statutory period of limitationgoverning such actions
Caragay-Layno vs . Hon . Cou rt of Appeals
G R No 52064 December 26 1984
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 123/269
G.R. No. 52064 December 26, 1984
Prescription cannot be invoked against
JULIANA for the reason that as lawfulpossessor and owner of the Disputed Portion,her cause of action for reconveyance which, ineffect, seeks to quiet title to the property, falls
within settled Jurisprudence that an action toquiet title to property in one's possession isimprescriptible. Her undisturbed possessionover a period of fifty-two (52) years gave her a
continuing right to seek the aid of a Court ofequity to determine the nature of the adverseclaim of a third party and the effect on her owntitle.
THIS IS NOT A REMEDY TO SETTLE A“BOUNDARY DISPUTE” as held in the case
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 124/269
BOUNDARY DISPUTE , as held in the caseof
ANASTACIA VDA. DE AVILES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS andCAMILO AVILES, G.R.
No. 95748. November 21, 1996 “We agree with respondent Court. The facts
presented unmistakably constitute a clearcase of boundary dispute, which is notcognizable in a special civil action to quiettitle.
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for
the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or
CO-OWNERSHIP:
Concept:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 125/269
Concept:
1. Right of common dominion which two or morepersons have in a spiritual part of a thing, notmaterially or physically divided [ Sanchez Roman]
2. Manifestation of the private right of ownership,which instead of being exercised by the owner in anexclusive manner over the things subject to it, isexercised by two or more owners and the undividedthing or right to which it refers is one and the same [
Manresa]
3. Co-ownership is not a real right distinct fromownership, but is a mere form or manifestation ofownership [ De Diego].
Characteristics:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 126/269
1. plurality of subjects 2. unity of object (material indivision) and recognition of the
ideal or intellectual shares of co-owners.
relationship of co-owner to his other co-
owners is fiduciary in character .
Cases:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 127/269
While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613 ofthe Code, "may not be compelled to consent toa partial redemption," the redemp t ion by oneco -heir or co -owner of the property in i tstotal ity does no t vest in him ownership over
it . Failure on the part of all the co-owners toredeem it entitles the vendee a retro to retainthe property and consolidate title thereto in hisname.7 But the provision does not give to theredeeming co-owner the right to the entire property. It does not provide for a mode ofterminating a co-ownership ( Adille vs. Hon.Court of Appeals et.al. G.R. No. 44546 29January 1988)
"No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner orco-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 128/269
co e aga s s co o e s o co e s so o g ashe expressly or impliedly recognizes the in view oftheir lack of a clear repudiation of the co-ownership,duly communicated to the petitioners (the other co-owners), private respondents cannot acquire theshares of the petitioners by, prescription. The recordin the Off ice of the Assesso r is no t the suff ic ientrepudiat ion and commun icat ion contemp lated bythe law. Neither may the Private respondents' possession of the premises militate againstPetitioners' claim. After all, co-owners are entitled tobe in possession of the premises.The existence of
the co-ownersh ip here argues against the theoryof impl ied trus t , for then a co -owner possessesco-owned p roper ty not in behalf of the other co - owners bu t in his own behal f . (Mariano vs. DeVega G.R. No. L-59974 March 9, 1987 )
Presumption of Equality ( Shares and
Chares):
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 129/269
Chares):
Share of co-owners in the benefits as well as
in the charges shall be proportional to their
respective interest. Stipulation to the contrary
shall be void.
There is presumption of equality in theshares.
Limitation on the right of a co-owner to use
thing owned in common:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 130/269
thing owned in common:
Use only: 1. purpose for which it is intended
2. without prejudice to the interests of the
co-ownership and 3. without preventing
others from making use thereof according to
their own rights.
Meaning of “purpose for which it is intended”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 131/269
What is meant by “purpose for which it isintended”? Agreement of the parties should
govern. If there is none, that use for which it
is ordinarily adapted according to its nature (e.g. house only for living and not to be used
as a factor y) or use to which is has been
previously devoted.
Principles:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 132/269
1. Mere tolerance on the part of the co-owners cannot legalize the change in the use
of a thing from that intended by the parties.
2. No prejudice to co-ownership-co-owners
agreed to lease, co -owner canno t use
w i thou t paying rent .
De Guia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.120864. October 8, 2003
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 133/269
120864. October 8, 2003
“ The right of enjoyment by each co-owner is limitedby a similar right of the other co-owners. A co-ownercannot devote common property to his exclusive useto the prejudice of the co-ownership. Hence, if thesubject is a residential house, all the co-owners may
live there with their respective families to the extent possible. However, i f one co -ow ner aloneoccup ies the ent i re house wi thou t opposi t ionfrom the other co-owners, and there is no leaseagreement, the other co-owners canno t demandthe payment of rent . Conversely, i f there is anagreement to lease the house, the co -owners candemand rent from the co -owner who dwel ls in thehouse.”
Right of any co-owner:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 134/269
ANY ONE CO-OWNER MAY BRING AN
ACTION FOR EJECTMENT, DEPARTURE
from a previous ruling Palarca vs. Baguisi 38Phil. 177
Article 487 of the Civil Code provides, “[a] ny oneof the co-owners may bring an action in
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 135/269
of the co owners may bring an action inejectment .” This art ic le covers al l kinds o f
act ions for the recovery ofpossess ion . A rt ic le 487 inc ludes fo rcib le
entry and un law ful detainer (acc ion
interdictal), recovery of pos session (acc ion
publ ic iana), and recovery of ownership(acc ion de reiv indicacion ). The summaryactions of forcible entry and unlawful detainerseek the recovery of physical possession
only. These actions are brought beforemunicipal trial courts within one year fromdispossession (De Guia vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 120864. October 8, 2003)
Any co-owner may file an action under
Article 487 not only against a third
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 136/269
Article 487 not only against a third
person, but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession
and asserts exclusive ownership of the
property. In the latter case, however, the
only purpose of the action is to obtainrecognition of the co-ownership. The
plaintiff cannot seek exclusion of the
defendant from the property because asco-owner he has a right of
possession. The plaintiff cannot recover
any material or determinate part of the
Suit by one co-owner vs. co-owner:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 137/269
Co-owner vs. Co-owner.- one co-owner maybring an action even against another co-
owner who takes exclusive possession and
asserts ownership in himself alone. Remedy,
however, is limited to obtaining
recognition of the co-ownership. He
cannot be excluded from possession.
Acts of Preservation or
Necessary Repairs
Acts of Administration
or
Management
Acts of Alteration,
encumbrance, or
alienation
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 138/269
Management alienation
1. Any co-owner may
decide on an act of
preservation ( Article
489)
2. If practicable, firstnotify his co-owner
of the necessity of
repairs
1. This is to be decided
by the majority of the
co-owners ( Article
489 and 492)
2. By majority is meantthe controlling
interest (financial
majority) not
numerical majority.
3. Appointment of an
administrator if thereis no majority.
1. Unanimous consent
of all the co-owners
is needed
2. Run to the courts for
appropriate relief, ifwithholding of
consent of one or
some of the co-
owners is clearly
prejudicial to the
common interest ( Article 491)
What is “Alteration”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 139/269
What constitutes ALTERATION? Alterations
is changing the thing from the state in which
the others believe it should remain, orwithdraws it from the use to which they
desire it to be intended .
Some examples of “acts of alteration”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 140/269
1. Sale, donation, or mortgage of the entireproperty
2. Sale, donation or mortgage of a part of theproperty but with definite boundaries
3. A voluntary easement
4. Lease of real property
5. Construction of a house on a lot owned in
common 6. Contracts of long duration
EFFECT OF AN ILLEGAL ALTERATION:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 141/269
1) Co-Owner will lose what he has spent 2) Demolition can be compelled
3) Liability for loss and damages
4) Whatever benefits belong to the co-ownership
LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 142/269
1. When lease is recorded with the Registry of
Property [Art. 1648. Every lease of real estatemay be recorded in the Registry of Property.Unless a lease is recorded, it shall not bebinding upon third persons. (1549a) ], it is not a
mere act of administration.
2. Note also [ Article 1878 (8) To lease any realproperty to another person for more than one
year.] lease of immovable property- meremajority cannot lease real property for morethan one year.
EXTENT OF CO-OWNER’S RIGHT:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 143/269
A co-owner is full owner of his part and thefruit and benefits pertaining thereto. He may
alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment.
Before partition, no individual or co-
owner can claim title to any definiteportion. All that he has is an ideal or
abstract quota or proportionate share in
the entire land or thing.
From the forego ing , i t may be deduced
that s ince a co owner is ent i t led to sel l h is
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 144/269
that since a co -owner is ent i t led to sel l his
und ivided share, a sale o f the ent ireproperty by one co -owner w i thout the
consent of the other co-owners is not nu l l
and vo id. However, on ly the r igh ts o f the
co -owner-sel ler are trans ferred, thereby
making the buyer a co-owner of the
property." ( Paulmitan vs. Court of Appeals
G. R. No. 61584 November 25, 1992)
Limitation on the “Right” of a Co-Owner:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 145/269
Limitation: co-owner cannot alienate rightswhich are purely personal, such as his share
in a right to use and habitation.
Right of Redemption of a co-owner:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 146/269
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercisethe right of redemption in case the shares of allthe other co-owners or of any of them, are soldto a third person. If the price of the alienation isgrossly excessive, the redemptioner shall payonly a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire toexercise the right of redemption, they may only
do so in proportion to the share they mayrespectively have in the thing owned incommon. (1522a)
Termination of co-ownership:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 147/269
1. Consolidation in only one of the owners of
all the shares of the others. 2. Destruction of the thing or the loss of the
right
3. Prescription in favor of a third person. 4. Partition ( agreement to subdivide is not
enough, there must be a subdivision plan
drawn and the co-owners actually occupiedthe respective portions in the plan and titlesissued accordingly).
CASES:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 148/269
1. "No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as heexpressly or impliedly recognizes the in view of their lackof a clear repudiation of the co-ownership, dulycommunicated to the petitioners (the other co-owners),private respondents cannot acquire the shares of thepetitioners by, prescription. The record in the Office of
the Assessor is not the sufficient repudiation andcommunication contemplated by the law. Neither maythe Private respondents' possession of the premisesmilitate against Petitioners' claim. After all, co-owners areentitled to be in possession of the premises.
The existence of the co-ownership here arguesagainst the theory of implied trust, for then a co-owner possesses co-owned property not in behalf ofthe other co-owners but in his own behalf .[ Marianovs . De Vega G.R. No L-59974 March 9, 1987.]
2. The redemption of the land made by
Fanesa did not terminate the co-ownership
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 149/269
p
nor give her title to the entire land subject of
the co-ownership….. Failure on the part of all
the co-owners to redeem it entitles the
vendee a retro to retain the property and
consolidate title thereto in his name (Supra,art. 1607). But the provision does not give
to the redeeming co-owner the right to the
entire property. It does not provide for amode of terminating a co-ownership."[
Paulm itan vs . Cou rt o f Appeals G.R. No.
61584 November 25, 1992.]
POSSESSION:
Concept of Possession
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 150/269
Concept of Possession
To possess means to have, to actually and
physically occupy a thing, with or without a
right. In general, it is the holding of a thing orof a right, whether by material occupation
or by the fact that the thing or the right is
subjected to the action of our will.
Distinction between possession and ownership:
Possession and ownership are two dif ferent legal
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 151/269
Possession and ownership are two dif ferent legalcon cepts. Jus t as possession is not a def in i te proo f
of ownership, neither is non-pos session inco nsistentwi th ownersh ip . Even assuming that petitioners’allegations are true, it bears no legal consequence in thecase at hand because the execut ion o f the deeds o fconveyances is already deemed equ ivalent to
delivery o f the proper ty to respondent , and prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required.[28] Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, “when the sale ismade through a public instrument, the execution thereofshall be equivalent to the delivery of the object of thecontract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear orcannot be inferred .” Possession is also transferred,along w ith ownership thereof , to respondent by vi r tueof the no tar ized deeds of co nveyances .[29]
Material Occupation
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 152/269
Possession always includes the idea ofoccupation, except in cases under Article 537[Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and thoseexecuted clandestinely and without the
knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or byviolence, do not affect possession] possessioncannot exist without it.
It is not, however, necessary that the person inpossession should himself be the occupant. Theoccupancy can be held by another in his name.
Animus Possidendi
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 153/269
This involves a state of mind whereby the possessor intends to exercise and does
exercise a right of possession, whether this
right be legal or otherwise and the intentionand will to possess usually are inferred from
the fact that the thing in question is under the
apparent power and control of the alleged
possessor. Two requisites: 1) Occupancy,apprehension, or taking 2) intent to possess.
Constructive Possession:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 154/269
Possession does not mean that a man has tohave his feet on every square meter ofground before it can be said that he is inpossession.
The rule is: Possession and control of aPORTION of a tract under a claim of
ownership of is a CONSTRUCTIVEpossession of all, i f the remainder is not in
the adverse possess ion of ano ther.
Viewpoints of Possession:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 155/269
a) RIGHT TO POSSESSION ( juspossidendi)- This is a right or incident of
ownership ( e.g. owner of parcel of land is
entitled to possess)
e.g. “right of registered owner to possess a
parcel of land”
b) RIGHT OF POSSESSION ( jus
possessionis)- This is an independent right of
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 156/269
possessionis) This is an independent right of
itself, independent of ownership ( e.g. lesseeby virtue of the lease agreement is entitled to
possess)
Degrees of Possession:
1. Mere holding or possession WITHOUT title whatsoever and inviolation of the right of the owner e.g. possession of a thief or a
f l d
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 157/269
usurper of land.
2. Possession with juridical [ a possession which gives thetransferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set upeven against the owner] title, BUT not THAT of OWNERSHIP.This is possession peaceably acquired e.g. possession of tenant,depositary, or pledgee.
3. Possession with a just title, or a title sufficient to transferownership, BUT NOT FROM THE TRUE OWNER e.g. thepossession of a vendee of a piece of land from one who pretendsto be the owner but is in fact not the owner.
4. Possession with a just title FROM THE TRUE OWNER. This ispossession that springs from ownership.
Possession may be had in two concepts:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 158/269
Possession of Holder:
One who possesses as a mere holder, or not
in the concept of owner, acknowledges inanother a SUPERIOR right which he
believes to be ownership, whether his belief
be right or wrong e.g. tenant, usufructuary,
or borrower of a thing in commodatum.
Possession in Concept [ opinion not of
possessor himself but opinion of others] of
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 159/269
possessor himself but opinion of others] of
Owner:
The possessor in the concept of owner may
be the OWNER himself or one WHOCLAIMS to be so.
Effects of Possession in Concept of Owner:
1 Possession in concept of owner is converted into
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 160/269
1. Possession in concept of owner is converted intoownership by the lapse of time necessary for prescription.
2. Possessor can bring all actions necessary to protecthis possession, availing himself of any action which anowner can bring, except accion reinvidicatoria which is
substituted by the accion publiciana.
3. He can ask for inscription of his possession in theregistry of property.
4. Upon recovering possession, he demand fruits anddamages.
Possessor in Good Faith:
1. Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 161/269
pperson from whom he received the thing was the owner of
the same and could convey his title.
2. The belief of the possessor that he is the legal ownerof the thing must be based upon SOME title or mode ofacquisition such as sale, a donation, inheritance, or other
means of transmitting ownership. Without this, therecan be no real well-grounded belief of one’sownership.
3. Ignorance of the law may be excusable and thus serveas the basis of good faith. ( e.g. prohibition to transferduring the 5 year period in case of lands covered by afree patent)
Possession in Bad Faith:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 162/269
Possession in Bad Faith:
1. One in possession of property knowing
that his title thereto is defective.
2. Examples: Possessor bought from one
whom she knew was merely a tenant; where
he knew that land belong to another etc.
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 163/269
Essential Requisites:
1. Acquisition of possession involves two (2)
elements: corpus [material holding] andanimus [intent to possess].
Constructive Delivery:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 164/269
1. Constructive delivery may be consideredas equivalent to material occupation in those
cases where such occupation is essential to
the acquisition of possession.
2. Cases of constructive delivery which
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 165/269
y
involve material occupation are: t radi t ion
brevi manu [ takes place when one who
possesses the things by title OTHER than
ownership continues to possess the same but
under a new title that of OWNERSHIP] and const itu tum possessor ium [ when the owner
alienates the thing, but continues to possess the
same under a different title, such as that of
depositary, pledge, or tenant].
Another means of acquiring possession is
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 166/269
q g p
through performance of juridical acts andlegal formalities e.g. donations, succession,
contracts, judicial possession, execution of
judgments, execution and registration of
public instruments etc.
Ign acio Wong vs . Hon . Carpio and Manuel
Mercado [ G.R. No. 50264 October 21,1991]
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 167/269
1991].
The execution of a sale thru a public instrumentshall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing,
unless there is stipulation to the contrary . If,however, no twi thstanding the execut ion of
the inst rument , the pu rchaser cannot have
the enjo yment and mater ial tenancy o f the
thing and make use of i t hersel f, becausesuch tenancy and enjoyment are opposed b y
ano ther, then delivery has no t been effected .(Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II,
1989 Ed p 400)
Art . 534. On who succeeds by heredi tary
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 168/269
t i t le shal l no t su ffer the consequences o f
the wrong fu l possession of the decedent ,
i f it is no t shown that he was aware of the
f laws affect ing it ; bu t the effects of
possession in good fa ith shal l not benef i t
h im except from the date of the death o f
the decedent . (442)
Reason for the Article:
Bad faith is personal and intransmissible. Its effectt th f b ff d l b th h
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 169/269
must, therefore, be suffered only by the person who
acted in bad faith; his heir should not be saddled withsuch consequences.
e.g. possession of decedent (in bad faith) is 5 years, possession of successor ( 10 years), successordeemed to have acquired property by prescription.He cannot be required to establish possession for 25years because of Art. 534.
Good faith can benefit only the person who HAS it;
and the good faith of the heir cannot erase the effectsof the bad faith of his predecessor.
Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated , and thoseexecuted clandest inely and w ithout theknow ledge of the possesso r of a thing, or by
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 170/269
g p g, yv io lenc e, do no t af fect possession .
Acts merely tolerated:
1. They are those which by reason ofneighborliness or familiarity, the owner ofproperty allows his neighbor or another personto do on the property. Acts of little disturbances,
in the interest of neighborliness or friendlyrelations e.g. permitting others to do on hisproperty to pass his land, tie a carabao, orgetting some water from a well.
POSSESSORS BY MERE TOLERANCE
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUILDERS
IN GOOD FAITH UNDER ARTICLE 448 OF
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 171/269
IN GOOD FAITH UNDER ARTICLE 448 OF
THE CIVIL CODE
Case:
KILARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R.
No. 134329, January 19, 2000
“Considering that petitioners were in possession ofthe subject property by sheer tolerance of its owners,th k th t th i ti f th i
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 172/269
they knew that their occupation of the premises may
be terminated any time. Persons who occupy the landof another at the latter's tolerance or permission,without any contract between them, is necessarilybound by an implied promise that they will vacate thesame upon demand, failing in which a summary
action for ejectment is the proper remedy againstthem.26 Thus, they cannot be considered possessorsnor builders in good faith. It is well-settled that both
Article 44827 and Article 54628 of the New Civil Codewhich allow full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises untilreimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor ingood faith, i .e., one who builds on land with the beliefthat he is the owner thereof.
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 173/269
Art . 540. Only the possession acquiredand enjoyed in the concept of owner can
serve as a ti t le for acqu ir ing dom inion
Application of Article:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 174/269
1. To consolidate title by prescription, thepossession must be under claim of ownership
and it must be peaceful, public and
uninterrupted.
2. Acts of possessory character done by virtue
of a license or mere tolerance on the part of the
real owner are not sufficient e.g. possession bylessees, trustees, pledges, tenants.
3. Where a party through ignorance,
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 175/269
inadvertence, or mistake occupies a land up
to a given line beyond his actual boundaries
because he believes it to be his true line,
BUT HAS NO SPECIFIC INTENTION of
claiming title to that extent, if it should beascertained that such line is on his
neighbor’s land, such possession is NOT
ADVERSE. The question is one of intent.
Meaning of “adverse possession”:
Case:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 176/269
Case
Wolfson vs. Aenlle G. R. No. 21312 November 22,1924
Facts:
1. At or about the time the shortage in plaintiff's landwas discovered, the defendant said to the plaintiff:"Let us wait for the cadastral survey, and if it is
established by that survey that I am holding any partof your property I will return to you all of that portionwhich may be in excess of what appears in my title.“
2. The cadastral survey was later made from
which it was found as a fact that the
d f d t h ldi 1 635 t
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 177/269
defendant was holding 1,635 square meters
of plaintiff's land in excess of defendant's
record title.
3. The refusal of the defendant to abandon
his claim to the plaintiff for the excess of the
1,635 square meters, which was found to
exist by the cadastral survey, resulted in thecommencement of this action.
Held:
After 1910 the defendant's possession of
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 178/269
After 1910, the defendant s possession of
the land in dispute could not be adverse to plaintiff's claim until after the cadastral surveywas made, and the defendant had refused toabandon his claim for the excess. Thatimportant fact, having been established bythe evidence of an impartial witness whosetestimony is not disputed or denied, is
conclusive of this case. Under such a state offacts, the defendant could not acquire title by prescription.
Art . 541. A possesso r in the concept of
owner has in his favo r the legal
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 179/269
presumpt ion that he possesses w i th a
just t i t le and he canno t be ob liged to
show or p rove it .
Meaning of “Just Title”:
1. Title is NOT NECESSARILY thedocument.
2. By “just title” is meant that which is legally
sufficient to transfer ownership or the real
POSSESSION PRESCRIPTION
a) “Just Title” is presumed a) “Just Title” must be proved
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 180/269
b) “Just Title” means “titulo
verdadero y valido” [ true and
valid title sufficient to transfer
ownership]
Notes:There is a mode of transferring ownership [ Art. 712.
Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual
creation.
Ownership and other real rights over property are
acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by estate
and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain
contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription.
(609a)], and the grantor is the owner. No need for
prescription.
b) “Just Title” means “titulo ” (
merely colorable title although
there was a mode of transferring
ownership)
Notes:
Although there is a mode of acquiring ownership,
still something is wrong, because the grantor is not
the owner .
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 181/269
WHAT ARE “NECESSARY EXPENSES”?
Necessary Expenses:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 182/269
y p
1. Expenses imposed by the existence of the thingitself, and have no relation to the desire or purpose ofthe possessor; hence, they are reimbursed, whatevermay be the juridical character [ whether one is in
good faith or bad faith] of the person who advanced.
2. Those incurred for the preservation of the thing,they ARE NOT considered as improvements. They
DO NOT increase the value of the thing, but merelyprevent it from being useless.
RULE ON “USEFUL EXPENSES”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 183/269
Useful expenses shal l be refunded on ly tothe possessor in good fai th wi th the same
r ight o f retent ion, the person who has
defeated him in the possession havingthe op t ion of refunding the amount of the
expenses o r of paying the increase in
value which the th ing may have acquired
by reason thereof.
WHAT ARE “USEFUL EXPENSES”?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 184/269
Useful Expenses:
They are incurred to give utility or
productivity of the thing. Reimbursed ONLYto the possessor in good faith. E.g. expenses
for filling up with soil, house constructed on
the land etc.
Can there be waiver of the right of retention?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 185/269
Answer: Yes
The surrender of possession of the property
by the possessor in good faith amounts to awaiver of right of retention; but the claim for
the expenses is not thereby renounced.
Can “possessor in good faith” remove
improvements?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 186/269
YES.
If the useful impro vements can beremoved w ithou t damage to the pr inc ipal
th ing , the possessor in good fai th may
remove them , un less the person who
recovers the possession exercises the
op t ion under paragraph 2 of the
preced ing art ic le.
RULE ON EXPENSES FOR “PURE
LUXURY”:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 187/269
Art . 548. Expenses fo r pure luxury or
mere pleasu re shal l no t be refunded to
the possessor in good fai th; bu t he may
remove the ornaments w i th which he hasembel lished the pr in cipal thing i f i t suf fers
no in jury thereby, and i f his successo r in
the possession does not p refer to refundthe amount expended.
What are expenses for “luxury”?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 188/269
Expenses for Luxury:
These expenses do not affect the existence
or the substance of the thing itself, but ONLYthe COMFORT, CONVENIENCE, or
ENJOYMENT of the possessor. They ARE
NOT subject to reimbursement.
RIGHTS OF POSSESSORS:
1 Useful expenses are reimbursed to the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 189/269
1. Useful expenses are reimbursed to the
possessor in good faith; by omission, the Codedenies this right to the possessor in bad faith.
2. With respect to expenses for pure luxury orpleasure, two kinds of possessors [ good faithand bad faith possessors] HAVE THE SAMERIGHT i.e. to remove the improvements upon
which they were made if the principal thing willsu f fer no in jury and the owner does not preferto retain them upon payment of the properindemnity.
3. Take note that with regard to USEFUL
EXPENSES th i BAD FAITH
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 190/269
EXPENSES, the possessor in BAD FAITH
has NO RIGHT TO REMOVE.
BUT, as regards “expenses for pure luxury”,a situation may arise where a possessor in
bad faith may receive the value of the
luxurious improvements under Article 549.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 191/269
HOWEVER, in the later case of of MWSS vs.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 192/269
COURT OF APPEALS 143 SCRA 623, theSupreme Court reiterated that the right given
a possessor in bad faith to remove
improvements app l ies only to
improvements for pure luxu ry or mere
pleasure as provided in Article 549 of the
Civil Code.
POSSESSION OF MOVABLE:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 193/269
The possession of movable propertyacquired in good faith is equ ivalent to a
tit le.
Requisites for Title:
1) Possession is in good faith; 2) the ownerhas voluntarily parted with the possession of
the thing; 3) possessor is in the concept of
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 194/269
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE GRANTING
OWNER THE RIGHT TO RECOVER:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 195/269
When possessor acquired it in good faith in
a public sale.
In this case, owner may recover provided he
shall reimburse the possessor.
There are, however, instances where even if
the owner offers to reimburse, still he cannot
recover as a matter of right:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 196/269
recover as a matter of right:
1. Estoppel
2. If title is lost through prescription
3. If possessor is a holder in due course of adocument of title
What is the meaning of “unlawful deprivation”?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 197/269
Unlawful deprivation extends to all cases-not only in cases where property is stolen-
where there is no valid transmission of
ownership including those where the
proprietor has entrusted the thing to aborrower
The case of *EDCA Pub l ishing &
Distr ibut ing Corp . vs . Santos [ G.R. No.
80298 April 26 1990]
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 198/269
80298 April 26, 1990].
Issue: Whether the petitioner has been
unlawfully deprived of the books because the
check issued by the impostor in payment
therefor was dishonored.
HELD:
N t l t i h t t
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 199/269
Non-payment only creates a r igh t to
demand payment or to rescind the
contract , or to c r iminal prosecu t ion in the
case of bouncing checks . But absent the
st ipu lat ion above no ted, del ivery o f the
thing so ld w i l l ef fect ively transfer
ownersh ip to the buyer who can in turn
trans fer i t to ano ther .
Actual delivery of the books having been
made Cruz acquired ownership over the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 200/269
made, Cruz acquired ownership over the
books which he could then validly transfer to
the private respondents. The fact that he had
not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter
between him and EDCA and did not impairthe title acquired by the private respondents
to the books.
USUFRUCT:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 201/269
Definition of “Usufruct”:
Real Right, of a temporary nature, which
authorizes its holder to ENJOY all thebenefits which results from the normal
enjoyment of another’s property, with the
OBLIGATION TO RETURN, at the
designated time, either THE SAME THING
or, in special cases (QUASI-USUFRUCT), its
EQUIVALENT.
Extent of Usufruct:
1. Usufruct is a REAL RIGHT [ power belonging
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 202/269
1. Usufruct is a REAL RIGHT [ power belonging
to a person over a specific thing, without apassive subject individually determined againstwhom such right may be personally exercised]and includes both the jus utendi AND the jus
fruendi.
2. There is an obligation to preserve the form
and substance of the thing in usufruct AS ARULE e.g. if usufruct on a fishpond, it must bepreserved as a fishpond; if a sugarcane field, itmust be preserved as a sugarcane field.
Consumable things:
1 With regard to consumable things strictly
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 203/269
1. With regard to consumable things, strictly
speaking there can be no usufruct, becausethey cannot be enjoyed without being
consumed. But since the law recognizes
usufruct over ALL KINDS OF THINGS, if thing isconsumable, usufruct should be considered as
on their value if appraised, or an equal quantity
and quality if not.
2. Even unproductive things can be an object of
usufruct.
Usufruct granted to aliens:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 204/269
*Ram irez, et al. vs. Vda. de Ramirez, etc .,et al . [ G.R. No. L-27952 February 15,
1982]
This opinion notwithstanding, We upho ld the
usufru ct in favor o f Wanda because a
usu fruct, albeit a real r igh t, does no t vest
t i t le to the land in the usufru ctuary and i t
is the vest ing o f t i tle to land in favor o f
al iens w hich is p rosc r ibed by the
Rights of Usufructuary:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 205/269
1. The usufructuary has the right to enjoy theproperty, to the same extent as the owner,
BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE
and the RECEIPT OF ITS FRUITS.
2. He cannot, however, extract products
which do not constitute fruits, because he is
bound to preserve the form and
substance of the thing.
USUFRUCTUARY MAY LEASE HIS
USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 206/269
Art. 572. The usu fructuary may personal ly
enjoy the thing in usufru ct , lease i t to
ano ther, or alienate his righ t of usu fruct,
even by a gratui tou s t i t le; but al l the
contracts he may enter into as such
usufruc tuary shall term inate upon the
exp irat ion of the usu fruc t , saving leases
of ru ral lands, which shal l be considered
as subsist ing du r ing the agr icu l tural year.
Usufruct over Consumable Things:
1. Improperly called “quasi-usufruct”.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 207/269
2. The usufruct is not upon the consumable thingsTHEMSELVES which are delivered to theusufructuary, but upon THE SUM representing their
value or upon a quantity of things of the same kindand quality.
3. Usufructuary becomes the owner of the things in
usufruct such as a sum of money or a quantity ofliquids or grain. Grantor becomes merely aCREDITOR entitled to the return of their value or ofthings of the same quantity and quality.
OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY:
1) To make after no t ice to the owner o r
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 208/269
1) To make, after no t ice to the owner or
h is legit im ate representative, an inventory
of al l the property, which shal l contain an
app raisal of the movables and a
descr ipt ion of the condi t ion of theimmovables ;
(2) To give secur i ty[ personal bond ,
pledge, or mortgage], b ind ing himsel f to
fu l f il l the ob l igations imposed upon him in
accordance w ith th is Chapter.
Exemptions of Usufructuary:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 209/269
1. When the owner waives; 2) where the title constituting the usufruct
exempts the usufructuary; and
3) where the usufructuary asks to be relievedfrom these obligations and no one will be
injured.
LIABILITY FOR ORDINARY REPAIRS:
Art. 592. The usu fructuary is ob l iged to
make the ord inary repairs needed by the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 210/269
make the ord inary repairs needed by the
th ing g iven in u su fruct .
LIABILITY FOR EXTRA-ORDINARYREPAIRS:
Art . 593. Extraord inary repairs shall be at
the expense of the owner . The
usufruc tuary is ob l iged to no t i fy the
owner when the need fo r such repairs is
urgent.
EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDES:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 211/269
Characteristics of Easements:
1. It is a real right; 2) Can be imposed only
on the property of another , never on one’sown property; 3) Produces limitation on
ownership, but ownership of servient estate
is unimpaired; 4) It is inseparable from thetenements to which it is actively or passively
attached; 5) Exists only between
neighboring tenements.
KINDS OF:
Continuous and Discontinuous:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 212/269
1. The distinction refers only to the EXERCISEof the servitude and not THE ESSENCE,because servitude exist continuously, whether itis being used or not e.g. right of aqueduct, rightto support a beam on another’s wall.
2. Discontinuous Easements e.g. right of way,the very exercise of the servitude depends uponthe act of man in passing over another’sproperty.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EASEMENTS:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 213/269
A pos i tive easement is one wh ichimposes upon the owner of the serv ient
estate the ob l igat ion o f allow ing
someth ing to be done or of doing i t
h imself , and a negative easement, that
which prohib i ts the owner of the serv ient
estate f rom do ing someth ing which he
could law ful ly do i f the easement d id no t
exis t (ALTIUS NON TOLLENDI)
EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 214/269
When “positive”?
Positive- When opening is made on
another’s wall, or on a party wall, theservitude acquired is POSITIVE, because the
owner or owners of such wall permits the
encumbrance to burden his or their wall.
When “negative”?
Negative- when the openings are made in
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 215/269
Negative when the openings are made in
one’s own wall [ when a person makes
openings on his own wall to admit light below
the ceiling joists [any of the parallel beams of
wood, metal, or concrete that support a floor,roof, or ceiling ], and he acquires a servitude to
admit such light, the servitude is a negative one-
because it imposes upon the owner of the
adjacent estate the obligation NOT TO
CONSTRUCT on his land in such manner as
to obstruct the light.]
Easements are ind ivis ible:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 216/269
If the servient estate is partitioned, theservitude continues upon the portions upon
which it was originally exercised.
If the dominant estate is divided into parts,
there arise as many new dominant
tenements as there are parts, each owner
exercising the rights of the owner of a
dominant tenement.
Easements are establ ished either by law
or by the wi l l of the owners.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 217/269
NO JUDICIAL EASEMENT:
Courts cannot create easement. They canonly declare the existence of one, if it exists,
but cannot constitute it when none existed
before. They may only apply the law
providing for legal easements, or declare the
existence of those created by the will of the
owners.
. Cont inuous and apparent easements are
acquired ei ther by v ir tue of a tit le or by
prescr ipt ion o f ten years .
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 218/269
p p y
TITLE means the juridical acts which gives
rise to the servitude e.g. law, donation,
contracts, and wills.
PRESCRIPTION:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 219/269
Special Case of Prescription (10 years). ItDOES NOT REQUIRE good faith or just title.
The general rules for acquisitive prescription
of ownership and other real rights do notapply to it. BUT ADVERSE POSSESSION or
EXERCISE OF THE EASEMENT must be
present.
HOW TO COMPUTE PRESCRIPTION:
POSITIVE EASEMENTS:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 220/269
In posi t ive easements , from the day on
which the owner of the dom inant estate,
or the person who may have made use of
the easement, commenced to exercise i t
upon the servient estate
NEGATIVE EASEMENTS:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 221/269
In negative easements, from the day on
which the owner of the dom inant estate
forbade, by an instrument acknow ledgedbefore a no tary pub l ic, the owner of the
servient estate, from execu t ing an act
which would be law fu l wi thout the
easement. E.G. proh ibi t ion to bu i ld a
bu i ld ing o f higher elevat ion .
CAN A RIGHT OF WAY BE ACQUIRED BY
PRESCRIPTION?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 222/269
NO.
1. Being an apparent but discontinuouseasement, it cannot be acquired by
prescription.
BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS ANDHEIRS OF MAGDALENO VALDEZ SR.,respondents.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 223/269
“Under civil law and its jurisprudence,easements are either continuous ordiscontinuous according to the manner they are
exercised, not according to the presence ofapparent signs or physical indications of theexistence of such easements. Thus, aneasement is continuous if its use is, or may be,
incessant without the intervention of any act ofman, like the easement of drainage; and it isdiscontinuous if it is used at intervals anddepends on the act of man, like the easement ofright of way.”
“Its use of the right of way, however long,
never resulted in its acquisition of the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 224/269
easement because, under Article 622, thediscontinuous easement of a railroad
right of way can only be acquired by title
and not by prescription.”
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY:
Requisites:
1.Dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 225/269
and has no adequate outlet to a public hightway.2. After payment of the proper indemnity
3. Isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of thedominant estate
4. Right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicialto the servient estate; and insofar as consistent withthis rule, where the distance from the dominant estateto a public highway may be the shortest [ e.g. hence,
subject to the limitation that the usefulness of theservient tenement to its owner is not impaired]
REMIGIO O. RAMOS, SR., petit ioner, vs .
GATCHALIAN REALTY, INC., EDUARDO
ASPREC, ENELDA ASPREC, ERNESTO
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 226/269
ASPREC, and COURT OF APPEALS,respondents .[ G.R. No. 75905 Oc tober 12,
1987] 3rd Division
["mere convenience for the dominant estate
is not enough to serve as its basis. To justify
the imposition of this servitude, there mustbe a real, not a fictitious or artificial,
necessity for it."]
CRITERION OF “LEAST PREJUDICE”
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 227/269
Art. 650. The easement o f r igh t o f wayshall be establ ished at the po int least
p rejud icial to the servient estate, and ,
inso far as consistent w ith this ru le, where
the distance from the dom inant estate to a
publ ic highway may be the shortest .
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 228/269
WIDTH OF EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 229/269
Art. 651. The width o f the easement o f
r ight of way shal l be that wh ich is
su f fic ient for the needs o f the dom inant
estate, and may acco rdingly be changed
from t ime to t ime.
EASEMENT OF PARTY WALL:
Co-ownership or Easement?
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 230/269
Easement [ Manresa, De Diego, Castan, and Ricci];Co-Ownership [ Sanchez Roman, Valverde, etc]
This co-ownership is a special class in itself [ as
shown by the following: 1) co-ownership is indivisible2) part pertaining to the co-owner can be materiallydesignated 3) rights of a co-owner greater than thoseof an ordinary co-owner, such as with respect toincreasing the height of the wall] . This is a kind of
COMPULSORY KIND OF CO-OWNERSHIP.
It is a servitude because, in an ordinary co-
ownership [ none of the co-owners may do
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 231/269
y
anything on the common property for his own
exclusive benefit, but in a party wall, there is
no limitation upon the juridical action of the
owners].
EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW:
Art. 667. No part-owner may, w ithou t the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 232/269
Art. 667. No part owner may, w ithou t the
consent of the others, open th rough the
party wal l any w indow or aperture of any
k ind . (580) Note: [ Co-owner can close,
UNLESS a sufficient time for prescription haselapsed.]
Two kinds of Easements:
1. Easement of Light “jus luminum” [ e.g.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 233/269
Art. 669. When the distances in Article 670are not observed, the owner of a wall whichis not party wall, adjoining a tenement or
piece of land belonging to another, can makein it openings to admit light at the height ofthe ceiling joist or immediately under theceiling, and of the size of thirty centimeters
square, and, in every case, with an irongrating imbedded in the wall and with a wirescreen]
2. Easement of View “ servidumbre
prospectus” e.g. as in the case of full or
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 234/269
regular windows overlooking adjoiningestate. “ altius non tollendi ” - easement not to
build higher for the purpose of obstruction.
REGULATORY OPENINGS:
Art. 670. No w indows, apertures, balcon ies,
or o ther sim i lar pro ject ions which afford a
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 235/269
di rec t v iew upon or towards an adjo in ingland or tenement can be made, w i thout
leaving a distance of two meters between
the wall in which they are made and such
cont iguous property.
Neither can s ide or obl ique views upon o r
towards such con term inous p roperty be
had, un less there be a distance of sixtycent imeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does
NUISANCE:
A nuisance is any act, om ission, establ ishment,
business, condi t ion o f proper ty, or anything else
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 236/269
, p p y, y g
which:
(1) Inju res or endangers the health or safety o f
others; or (2) Annoys or o ffends the senses; or
(3) Shocks , def ies o r dis regards decency or
morali ty ; or
(4) Obs truc ts or interferes w ith the free passageof any publ ic highway o r street , or any body of
water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of pro perty.
PUBLIC NUISANCE:
A publ ic nuisance affects a commun i ty o r
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 237/269
neighbo rhood o r any considerablenumber of persons , al though the extent o f
the annoyance, danger or damage upon
ind iv iduals may be unequal .
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
A private nu isance is one that is no t
included in the forego ing def in i t ion.
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance:
Dangerous instrumentality or appliance
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 238/269
g y pp
which is likely to attract children at play.
One who maintains on his estate or premises
an attractive nuisance without exercising due
care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a
child of tender years who is injured thereby,
even if the child is technically a trespasser inthe premises.
Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. vs. Guillermo Balandan et.al. G.R. No. L-3422 June 13, 1952
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 239/269
“Nature has created streams, lakes and poolswhich attract children. Lurking in their waters isalways the danger of drowning. Against thisdanger children are early instructed so that they
are sufficiently presumed to know the danger;and if the owner of private property createsan artificial pool on his own property, merelyduplicating the work of nature without
adding any new danger , . . . (he) is not liablebecause of having created an `attractivenuisance.”
`Estate of Gregoria Francisco et.al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95279 July 26, 1991
Respondents can not seek cover under thegeneral welfare clause authorizing the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 240/269
abatement of nuisances without judicialproceedings. That tenet applies to anuisance per se, or one which affects theimmediate safety of persons and propertyand may be summarily abated under theundefined law of necessity (Monteverde v.Generoso, 52 Phil. 123 [1982]). The storageof copra in the quonset building is alegitimate business. By its nature, it can not
be said to be injurious to rights of property,of health or of comfort of the community. If itbe a nuisance per accidens it may be soproven in a hearing conducted for that
MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP:
Art . 712. Ownersh ip is acquired by
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 241/269
occupat ion and by intel lectual creat ion .
Ownersh ip and other real r igh ts over
property are acquired and transm it ted by
law, by donation , by testate and intestate
succession, and in consequence of
certain contracts, by tradi t ion .
They may also be acquired by means of
prescr ipt ion.
MODE AND TITLE:
Mode is the specific cause which produces
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 242/269
dominion and other real rights as a result of
the co-existence of special status of things,
capacity and intention of persons and
fulfillment of the requisites of law.
Title is every juridical rights which gives a
means to the acquisition of real rights but
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 243/269
which in itself is insufficient.
Illustration:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 244/269
Title is the remote cause, and mode theproximate cause of the acquisition.
e.g. Contract of sale is the title, tradition is themode.
Ownership is not transferred by contract of
sale but by tradition
Classification of Donations:
Simple- cause is pure liberality
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 245/269
Remuneratory ( first kind)- to reward past
services e.g. donation who saved life of his
son)
Remuneratory (second kind)- to reward future
services
Onerous- there are burdens, charges, or
future service. This is govern by the rules of
contracts.
EFFECT OF ILLEGAL OR IMPOSSIBLE
CONDITIONS
Art. 727. Il legal or impossib le condit ions
i i l d t d t i
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 246/269
in s imple and remuneratory donat ion s
shal l be cons idered as no t imposed. (
THIS ONLY APPL IES IF THE DONATION IS
PURELY GRATUITOUS)
FOR ONEROUS DONATIONS, THE RULE INOBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS APPLIES
i R l i t t [ hi h i li bl i
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 247/269
i.e. Rule in contracts [ which is applicable in acase of “onerous donation”]:
Art. 1183. Impossible conditions, those contraryto good customs or public policy and those
prohibited by law shall annul the obligation
which depends upon them. If the obligation is
divisible, that part thereof which is not affected
by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be
valid.
Validity of conditions in an “onerous donation”:
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA
et.al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.
77425 J 19 1991
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 248/269
77425 June 19, 1991
The deed of donation allegedly provides that
the donee shall not dispose or sell the propertywithin a period of one hundred (100) years from
the execution of the deed of donation, otherwise
a violation of such condition would render ipso
facto null and void the deed of donation and the
property would revert to the estate of the
donors.
HELD:
The cause of action of private respondents is
b d th ll d b h b titi f
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 249/269
based on the alleged breach by petitioners of
the resolutory condition in the deed of
donation that the property donated should
not be sold within a period of one hundred(100) years from the date of execution of the
deed of donation. Said condition, in our
opinion, constitutes an undue restriction onthe rights arising from ownership of
petitioners and is, therefore, contrary to
ublic olic .
DONATION MORTIS CAUSA:
A t 728 D ti hi h t t k
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 250/269
Art. 728. Donation s which are to takeeffect upon the death o f the dono r partake
of the nature of testamentary pro vis ions ,
and shal l be governed by the rules
estab l ished in th e Tit le on Success ion .
Austria-Magat vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 106755 February 1, 2002 [ INTER-
VIVOS DONATION]
D d f D ti id
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 251/269
Deed of Donation provides:
Ibinibigay ko at ipinagkakaloob ng ganap at
hindi mababawi sa naulit na apat na anak ko
at sa kanilang mga tagapagmana, ang aking
lupang residential o tirahan sampu ng aking
bahay nakatirik doon xxx. (emphasissupplied)
This is a clear expression of the irrevocabilityof the conveyance. The irrevocability of the
donation is a characteristic of a donation
i t i B th d “hi di b b i”
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 252/269
inter vivos. By the words “hindi mababawi”,the donor expressly renounced the right to
freely dispose of the house and lot in
question. The right to dispose of a property isa right essential to full ownership. Hence,
ownership of the house and lot was already
with the donees even during the donor’s
lifetime.
On the issue of effect of prohibition to alienate:
“On the other hand, the prohibition to
b li t ll th t d i
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 253/269
encumber, alienate or sell the property duringthe lifetime of the donor is a recognition of
the ownership over the house and lot in issue
of the donees for only in the concept of anowner can one encumber or dispose a
property.”
CHARACTERISTICS OF A MORTIS CAUSA DONATION:
Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals [ G.R. No. L-6600 July 30,1954 ], the characteristics of donation mortis causa areas follows:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 254/269
(1) It conveys no title or ownership to thetransferee before the death of the transferor; or, whatamounts to the same thing, that the transferor shouldretain the ownership (full or naked) and control of theproperty while alive;
(2) That before his death, the transfer should berevocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; butrevocability may be provided for indirectly by means of areserved power in the donor to dispose of the propertiesconveyed;
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferorshould survive the transferee.
PERFECTION OF DONATION:
Art. 734. The donation is perfected from
the moment the donor kno s of the
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 255/269
the moment the donor knows of the
acceptance by the donee.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 256/269
The purpose of the formal requirement is toinsure that the acceptance of the donation isduly communicated to the donor. In the caseat bar, it is not even suggested that Juana
f th t f h i
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 257/269
was unaware of the acceptance for she infact confirmed it later and requested thatthe donated land be not registered during
her lifetime by Salud. 13 Given thissignificant evidence, the Court cannot inconscience declare the donation ineffectivebecause there is no notation in the
extrajudicial settlement of the donee'sacceptance. That would be placing too muchstress on mere form over substance.
DONATION OF A MOVABLE:
A rt. 748. The donation of a movable may
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 258/269
be made orally o r in w ri t ing .
An oral donat ion requ ires the
simul taneous delivery o f the th ing or o f
the document represent ing the r igh t
donated.
If the value of the personal property
donated exceeds f ive thousand pesos, the
donat ion and the acceptance shal l be
made in w ri t ing, otherw ise, the donat ion
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 259/269
Quilala vs. Gliceria Alcantara et.al. G.R. No.132681 December 3, 2001
FACTS:
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 260/269
FACTS:
The acknowledgement only contains the name of
the donor to be the only one who appearedbefore the Notary Public. There was no mention
of the donee. But in the Deed of Donation itself,
there appears a stipulation that the “donee
hereby receives and accepts the gift and
donation made in her favor by the donor….”
HELD:
In the same vein, the lack of an
acknowledgment by the donee before the notarybli d t l d th d ti ll
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 261/269
acknowledgment by the donee before the notarypublic does not also render the donation nulland void. The instrument should be treated inits entirety. It cannot be considered a private
document in part and a public document inanother part. The fact that it was acknowledgedbefore a notary public converts the deed ofdonation in its entirety a public instrument. The
fact that the donee was not mentioned bythe notary public in the acknowledgment isof no moment.
VOID DONATION may be basis for title through ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
CALICDAN vs. CENDANA G.R. NO. 155080FEBRUARY 5, 2004
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 262/269
FACTS:
The donation involved a 760 sq.m. parcel of land in
Mangaldan, Pangasinan executed by Fermina Calicdan (in 1947) in favor of Silverio Cendana. This is a suit forrecovery instituted by Soledad Calicdan, one of thechildren of Fermina.
The donation was found to be the exclusive property ofFermina’s husband, Sixto, being an inheritance from thelatter’s parents.
HELD:
Although the donation is void for having been
t d b h i t th
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 263/269
executed by one who is not the owner,
considering that it was established that
respondent Silverio Cendana has been in
possession of the land for 45 years alreadyhe has acquired title to it by acquisitive
prescription.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 264/269
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA et.al. vs.COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 77425 June 19, 1991
HELD:
Although it is true that under Article 764 of the Civil Code
an action for the revocation of a donation must be brought
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 265/269
an action for the revocation of a donation must be broughtwithin four (4) years from the non-compliance of theconditions of the donation, the same is not applicable inthe case at bar. The deed of donation involved hereinexpressly provides for automatic reversion of the
property donated in case of violation of the conditiontherein, hence a judicial declaration revoking thesame is not necessary.
When a deed of donation, as in this case, expressly
provides for automatic revocation and reversion of theproperty donated, the rules on contract and the generalrules on prescription should apply, and not Article 764 ofthe Civil Code.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO FILE ACTIONTO REDUCE ON THE GROUND OFIMPAIRMENT OF LEGITIME
“Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code actions
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 266/269
Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actionsupon an obligation created by law must bebrought within ten years from the time theright of action accrues. Thus, the ten-yearprescriptive period applies to theobligation to reduce inofficiousdonations, required under Article 771 of
the Civil Code, to the extent that theyimpair the legitime of compulsory heirs.”
( Eloy Imperial vs. CA et.al. GR.112483 Oct.8, 1999
From when shall the ten-year period bereckoned? The case of Mateo vs. Lagua, 29
SCRA 864, which involved the reduction for
inofficiousness of a donation propter nuptias
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 267/269
inofficiousness of a donation propter nuptias,recognized that the cause of action to
enforce a legitime accrues upon the death of
the donor-decedent. Clearly so, since it isonly then that the net estate may be
ascertained and on which basis, the
legitimes may be determined.
8/13/2019 PROPERTY_lecture Notes of Atty Waldemar Gravador
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/propertylecture-notes-of-atty-waldemar-gravador 268/269