Villar, John Ezra G.

2-1

1.
A. Under the Civil code, the bundle of rights is provided by Article 428:
“The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other
limitations than those established by law.

The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing
in order to recover it.”

The right to enjoy includes the right to possess, use, and a right to the
fruits; the right to dispose includes the right to consume, destroy, or abuse,
and the right to encumber and alienate.

B. The Stewardship principle is a legal document which adds another

obligation to an individual as an owner. It says that property is supposed to
be held by the individual only as a trustee by people in general.

It has 3 features:
1. Owners of land have a social obligation to not just use their lands for
their own but for the welfare of the State;
2. Even though every citizen has a right to private ownership, landholdings
that exceed requirements for his essential necessities or that are not
conducive to the general welfare could be interfered by the State;
3. The principle can extend over the Bundle of Rights. This principle is still
subject to the limitations or restrictions that are imposed by law or
government regulations.

The third feature explains that not just to the land but to an owner’s
“bundle of rights”, the stewardship principle should be followed so that
citizens use their property not just to not harm others but to use it with the
welfare of the state in mind.

Page 1 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

C. There are a lot of limitations on the right of ownership.

a. by the State:
- Power of Taxation
- Police Power
- Power of Eminent Domain.

b. Law
- Legal easements, i.e., right of way.
- Requirement of legitime in succession.

c. By the owner himself:

- Voluntary easement
- Mortgage
- Pledge
- Lease

d. Grantor of the property on the grantee:

- Contract
- Donation
- Will

e. By those arising from conflicts of private rights

f. By the Constitution which prohibits aliens from acquiring private lands.

g. By acts in state of necessity where the law permits injury or destruction

of things owned by another provided this is necessary to avert a greater
danger (with right to indemnity v. principle of unjust enrichment)

h. Need for judicial process when there’s a disputable presumption of

ownership to those in actual possession.

Page 2 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

2.
In the principle of self-help, the owner or even someone in lawful
possession of a property has the right to use reasonable force to prevent or
repel an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
property. This was provided by Article 429 of the New Civil Code:
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use
such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (n)

It should be noted that there must be no delay in the pursuit and the
intruder must not have succeed in his/her entry as the provision would not
apply as one should not and cannot put the law in his own hands. For this
occasion, a court action is necessary.

A good example would be the case of People v Pletcha, Jr., G.R. no, 19029-
CR, June 27, 1977, where the court in favor of a farmer who was the
presumed lawful owner that his action of fending off a crew of 8 men sent
by a corporation to fence 4 hectares of his land was legal.

The court quoted Tolentino.

“The principle of self-help authorizes the lawful possessor to use force, not
only to prevent a threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation thereof; it is a
sort of self-defense. It is lawful to repel force by force. He who merely uses
force to defend his possession does not possess by force. The use of such
necessary force to protect propriety or possessory rights constitutes
justifying circumstances under the Penal Code.” (Tolentino, A., Civil Code of
the Philippines, Vol. II, Ed. 1972, pp. 58-59)

In acts in state of necessity, instead of repelling or preventing to enter,

injure, or destroy (the provision uses the word, “interference”) a property,

Page 3 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

an owner must allow another to do such things if they’d be necessary to

avert a greater danger. Article 432 of the New Civil Code says:
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of
another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the
owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the
person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

This has the following requisites:

(1) The interference must be necessary to avert an imminent danger or
threatened damage to the actor or to a third person.
(2) The danger or threatened damage to another is much greater than the
damage arising to the owner of the property.

Under the Revised Penal Code, this is seen as a “justifying circumstance”,

provided that the following requirements of Article 11, par. 4 of the RPC are
present:

a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
c. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

The most usual example for this case would be when Police Officers would
have a need to barge in a house when they are in “hot pursuit” of a
perpetrator and the latter goes inside a private property.

3.

In recovery of Personal Property, the proper action would be a replevin, as

provided by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 1 (application) of the
aforementioned rule states, “A party praying for the recovery of possession
of personal property may, at the commencement of the action or at any
time before answer, apply for an order for the delivery of such property to
him, in the manner hereinafter provided.”

Page 4 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

It is necessary for the plaintiff to show an affidavit by him or a person with

a knowledge of the facts which must contain the following:
The plaintiff/applicant must show, by his own affidavit or that of some
other person who personally knows the facts:

(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly
describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging
the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief;
(c) The actual market value of the property.

Also, he must give a bond which us double the value of the property in
question. The court then orders the sheriff to take the property in his
custody, if not delivered on demand, the sheriff may even break open a
building or enclosure hiding the property in question.

For recovery of Real Property, there are three actions, namely:

Forcible entry or unlawful detainer (formerly referred to as accion
interdictal)
- an ejectment proceeding which may either be for forcible entry
(detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio).
- a summary action for recovery of physical possession where the
dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought
in the proper inferior court (MTC, MCTC).

Accion Publiciana
- plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, which
should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the
dispossession has lasted for more than one year.

Accion Reivindicatoria

Page 5 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

- which is an action for the recovery of ownership which must be brought in

the proper Regional Trial Court.

Tolentino says that in certain cases, one can also use a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction and a writ of possession.

4.
A.
Forcible entry is a remedy for when someone is physically deprived of
possession of real property by the means of force, intimidation, strategy,
threats, or stealth.

Here are the requisites:

(1) Prior physical possession of the property; and
(2) Unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force, intimidation,
strategy, threat or stealth.

In forcible entry, unlawful possession in acquired by force, intimidation,

strategy, threat or stealth; no previous demand to vacate against the
defendant is necessary; the plaintiff needs to prove that he had prior
physical possession before deprivation, and that that 1 year period is
counted from the actual entry of the land.

Unlawful detainer, on the other hand, is a remedy against a person who

illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right
to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.

Here are the requisites:

(1) Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with
or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;

Page 6 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

(3) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and

deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

In Unlawful Detainer, the Possession is inceptively lawful but becomes

illegal from the time defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right thereto; demand is jurisdictional if the
grounds are non-payment of rentals or failure to comply with lease
contract; there’s no need for the plaintiff to have actual physical possession
prior to the defendant; the 1 year period is counted for the date of the last
demand or last letter of demand.

B.
In Serdoncillo vs. Sps. Benolirao, Carisima, and Court of Appeals, G.R. no.
118328, October 8, 1998, the court said that:
“Accion publiciana which is a plenary action for recovery of the right to possess
and which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when the
dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and, (3) accion reivindicatoria
or accion de reivindicacion which seeks the recovery of ownership and includes
the jus possidendi brought in the proper regional trial court.”

5.
Article 439 of the New Civil Code defines treasures, hidden or not:
“Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and
unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful
ownership of which does not appear “

Although the provision says “other precious objects”, this does not include
gold and oil as they are natural resources and are covered by the Regalian
Doctrine.

When it comes to discovery, Article 438 says:

Page 7 of 8
Villar, John Ezra G.
2-1

“Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property
on which it is found.

Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the

State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed
to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of
the treasure.

If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State may acquire
them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule
stated.“

Simply put, the general rule is that the owner of the property where the
entire treasure is found is also the owner. The exception being that if the
finder is not the owner or is a stranger, even if it was a lessee or a
usufructuary, the latter is only entitled to half.

The exception has the following requisites:

1. Discovery was made on the property of Another, or of the State or any of
its political subdivisions;
2. Made by Chance; and
3. He is not a Trespasser or Agent of the landowner
(Art. 438, par. 2).

It should be added that according to the Family Code, Executive Order 209,
the spouse is entitled to half of the share of the finder as it is conjugal
property (Art, 117, par, 4, FC).

Being that it is required to be found by chance, the finder is not entitled to

the hidden treasure in case he deliberately searched. (Art. 438)

Page 8 of 8