Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PROPERTY
Property (Civil law concept)
Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:
(1) Immovable or real property; or
(2) Movable or personal property.
What is appropriation?
The New Civil Law Code does not define what appropriation is, but it has been considered as equivalent to occupation, which
is the willful apprehension of a corporeal object which has no owner, and with intent to acquire its ownership.
PROPERTY, classification:
a. Immovable or real property; and
b. Movable or personal property
Note: According to some authors, the classification given in Article 414 is not complete in that there should be a third
classification the – “mixed” or the "semi-immovable". This classification refers to movable property like machines or removable
houses or transplantable trees which under certain conditions, may be considered immovable by virtue of their being attached to
an immovable for certain specified purposes.
Examples:
a. Donations
1) real property (like land) = must be in a public instrument, otherwise, the alienation will be null and void even as between
the parties.
2) movable (like a ring valued at say P 5,000.00) = needs only to be in a private instrument. (Art748).
b. Ownership by prescription
1) real property (in bad faith) = 30 years (Art 1137)
2) personal properly (in bad faith) = 8 years (Art 1132).
May parties by agreement treat as personal property that which by classification under the law is real property?
It would seem that under the Civil Code, it is only the LAW which may consider certain real property (like growing crops) as
personal property for the purpose of making a chattel mortgage. (Art 416(2)) Also, for purposes of taxation, a real property may
be considered as personal property.
REMINDERS:
F A building is considered an immovable property.
o Even if the owner of the land is different from the owner of the building constructed on such land, the building does not
lose its immovable character.
F If a chattel mortgage is constituted over a building separately owned by the mortgagor, the same may still be valid and
effective between the contracting parties by reason of estoppel provided no rights of third persons who are in good faith are
impaired.
o However, in case of foreclosure the mortgagor may proceed in accordance with the rules on foreclosure of real estate
mortgage.
Immovable Property:
Classes of Immovable:
1.) Immovable by nature = those which cannot be moved from place to place because of their nature such as land (Art 415(1)),
mines, quarries and slag dumps (Art 415(8));
Page 2 of 82
2.) Immovable by incorporation = those which are essentially movables but are attached to an immovable in such manner as to
become an integral part thereof [Examples: those mentioned in par 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 of Art 415, except land, buildings, and
roads]
3.) Immovable by destination = those which are essentially movables, but by the purpose for which they have been placed in an
immovable, partake the nature of the latter because of the added utility derived there from (such as those mentioned in pars
4, 6,7 & 9 of Art 415); and
4.) Immovable by analogy or by law = those mentioned in Art 415(10) -- right of usufruct easements, and servitudes.
PAR 1: land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.
PAR 2: Trees, plants and growing crops, while they are attached to the land form an integral part of an immovable.
Ungathered fruits
F when the land is being leased by another, and the fruits belong to the tenant, the fruits may be considered as immovable
because no exception or qualification is made under the Civil Code.
F However, when the fruits although ungathered are sold, as when the entire harvest is sold before being actually gathered, it is
considered as a sale of movables.
F In the case of Sibal vs Valdez, 50 Phil 512, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of attachment and execution, and for
purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property. (mobilized by
anticipation -- when the crops are sold, it is understood that they are to be gathered)
Page 3 of 82
PAR 3: Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated there from without
breaking the material or deterioration of the object. (called Res Vinta in Roman Law)
F Under this paragraph, for the incorporated thing to be considered real property, the injury or breakage or deterioration in case
of separation, must be substantial. Examples:
o A fixed fire escape stairway firmly embedded on the walls of the house;
o an aqueduct;
o a sewer
o a well
F If the thing incorporated is temporarily removed with the intention to replace the same, the thing is considered as personal
property because the incorporation had ceased.
F The material fact of incorporation or separation is what determines the condition of the tenement; it recovers its conditions as
movables, irrespective of the intention of the owner.
Par 3 Par 4
Cannot be separated Can be separated from
from immovable immovable without
without breaking or breaking or
deterioration deterioration
Need not be placed by Must be placed by the
the owner owner, or his agent,
express or implied
Real property by Real property by
incorporation incorporation and
destination
PAR 4: Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in building or on land by the owner of the
immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements.
Notes:
1. The objects must be placed by the owner of the immovable (buildings or lands) and not necessarily by the owner of the
object.
2. The owner of the building or land may act through his agent or if insane, through his duly appointed guardian.
3. If placed by a mere tenant, the objects must remain chattels or personality (See Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61P709).
4. Where the owner of a tenement entered into a contract with a lessee, stipulating that the lessee shall place certain objects in
the property leased, and that such objects shall remain with the property upon the termination of the lease, without any
obligation on the part of the owner to reimburse the lessee, it has been held that the tenant acts as an agent of the owner in
giving by contract a permanent destination to them (See: Valdez vs. Central Altagracia, 255 U.S. 58).
PAR 5: machinery, receptacles, instruments, or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which
may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works
Requisites:
1. The placing must be made by the owner of the tenement, his agent, or his duly authorized legal representative;
2. The industry or works must be carried on in the building or on the land;
3. The machines, etc. must tend directly to meet the needs of said industry, or works (Adaptability)
4. The machines must be essential and principal elements in the industry, and not merely incidental.
Page 4 of 82
F A transportation business is not carried on in a building or in the compound (See: Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 9-29-
62)
F Cash registers, typewriters, etc. usually found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals, and should
not be considered immobilized by destination for these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these
equipment.
The same applies to the repair or service shop of the transportation business because the vehicles may be repaired or
serviced in another shop belonging to another.
F Machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of liquor and soft drinks, though movable by nature, are immobilized
because they are essential to said industries; but the delivery trucks and adding machines which they usually own and use
and are found within their industrial compounds are merely incidentals and retain their movable nature
F Machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or
plant but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right of a tenant, unless such
person acted as the agent of the owner.
Machines placed in a sugar central are considered immovable, even if the central has already been the subject of mortgage.
Note: Would it have made a difference if there was no stipulation that the real estate mortgage would cover future
improvements? No, the improvements would be covered automatically by law as the same are immobilized. Of course, the
parties are free to stipulate what may be excluded from the mortgage.
Effect of separation:
A If the machines are still in the building, but no longer used in the industry conducted therein, the machines revert to the
condition of a chattel.
A The moment they are separated from the purpose of the industry (not necessarily from the immovable), they recover their
condition as movables (Ago vs. CA 6 S 530)
A On the other hand, if still needed for the industry, but separated from the tenement temporarily, the property continues to be
an immovable, inasmuch as par 5 refers, not to real property by incorporation, but to real property by destination or
purpose.
GR: Machinery attached to land or a tenement is considered immovable when the machinery is intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works w/c may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and w/c tend directly to meet
the needs of the said industry or works
Exception: When the machinery is placed on the land or tenant by a mere tenant, it is considered as movable property
By the installation of the sawmill machineries in the building of the Golden Pacific Sawmill, Inc., for use in the sawing of logs
carried on in said building, the same became a necessary and permanent part of the building or real estate on which the same was
constructed, converting the said machineries and equipments into real estate within the meaning of Article 415(5).
Considering that the machineries and equipments in question valued at more than P15,000.00 appear to have been sold without
the necessary advertisement of sale by publication in a newspaper, as required in Sec. 16 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the sale
made by the sheriff must be declared null and void.
PAR 6: Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fishponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed
them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the
animals in these places are included.
A The houses referred to here may already be deemed included in par. 1 when speaking of "constructions of all kinds adhered to
the soil."
A Even if the animals are temporarily outside, they may still be considered as real property as long as the intent to return is
present, as in case of a homing pigeon.
A But from the viewpoint of criminal law, they are considered as personal property and may properly be the objects of theft or
robbery.
A When the animals inside the permanent animal houses are alienated onerously or gratuitously, it is believed that the
transaction is an alienation of personal property, unless the building or the tenement itself is also alienated. This is because
in said alienation, the animal structures must of necessity be detached from the immovable. Hence, an ordinary inter vivos
donation of a pigeon-house need not be in a public instrument.
A Fertilizers still in the barn and even those already on the ground but wrapped inside some newspapers or any other covering
are still to be considered personal property, for they have not yet been "actually" used or spread over the land.
A The fertilizers should be on the land where they are to be utilized, because it is only then, that the intention of the owner to
use them on the tenement is beyond doubt. Hence, fertilizers kept in the farmhouse are not immovable.
PAR 8: Mines, quarries, and slag dumps while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters,either running or stagnant.
A Mines, including the minerals still attached thereto, are real properties, but when the minerals have been extracted, the latter
become chattels (40 CJ 903)
A Slag dump is the dirt and soil taken from a mine and piled upon the surface of the ground. Inside the "dump" can be found the
minerals.
A The "waters" referred to are those still attached to or running through the soil or ground. But the "water" itself as
distinguished from "waters" is clearly personal property.
A On the other hand, canals, rivers, lakes, and such part of the sea as may be the object of appropriation, are classified as real
property.
PAR 9: Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river,
or coast.
A A floating house tied to a shore or bank post and used as a residence is considered real property, considering that the "waters"
on which it floats, are considered immovable.
A In a way, we may say that the classification of the accessory (the floating house) follows the classification of the principal
(the waters). However, if the floating house makes it a point to travel from place to place, it assumes the category of a
vessel.
A By express provision of Article 585 of the Code of Commerce, vessels are movable property, but they partake, to a certain
extent, of the nature and conditions of the real property, on account of their value and importance in the world of
commerce. (Rubiso vs. Rivera, 37 Phil 72)
A Vessels are considered personal property. As a matter of fact, they are indeed very movable. (PRC vs. Jarque,61 Phil 229).
A Because they are personal property, they may be the subject of the chattel mortgage. (McMicking vs. Espanol-Filipino, 13
Phil 429; Arroyo vs. Yu de Sane, 44 Phil7).
PAR 10: Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property (real prop by analogy)
A The properties referred to in this paragraph are not material things but rights, which are necessarily intangible.
Page 6 of 82
A The piece of paper on which the contract for the public works has been written is necessarily personal property, but the
contract itself or the right of the contract is real property.
A A servitude or easement is an encumbrance imposed on an immovable for the benefit of another owner, or for the benefit of a
person, group of person, or a community, like the easement of right of way.
A Other real rights over real property include
o real estate mortgage,
o antichresis,
o possessory retention,
o usufruct,
o leases of real property, if registered; or even if not registered, if their duration is for more than a year.
A Usufruct of personal property or a lease of personal property should be considered personal property.
A In the case of Presbitero vs. Fernandez (March 30, 1958), the Supreme Court held that sugar quotas are real property, for they
are by law considered "real rights over immovable property" just like servitudes and easements.
u Real rights are those rights which are enforceable against the whole world. (i.e. ownership, possession in concept of holder,
servitude, mortgage).
u For a real right to be considered real property, the real right must be over an immovable property. For example, the real right
of ownership of the land is considered real property while the real right of ownership over a bag is considered personal
property.
Movable Property
1. Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
Examples:
u Growing crops for the purpose of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Sibal vs. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512);
u machinery placed on a tenement by a tenant, who did not act as the agent of the tenement owner (Davao Sawmill vs. Castillo,
61 Phil 709);
Examples: Electricity, gas, light, nitrogen (US vs. Carlos, 21 Phil. 543)
4. In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to which they are
fixed.
Examples: Machinery not attached to land nor needed for the carrying on of an industry conducted therein; portable radio;
diploma hanging on the wall
1. Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums;
# The term obligations really refers to “credits" and also includes bonds, which are technically obligations of the entity issuing
them.
# Action - if somebody steals my car, my right to bring action to recover the automobile is personal property by itself.
# A promissory note is a personal property; the right to collect it is also a personal property.
2. Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities although they may have real estate
# Although the provisions of par. 2 seem to refer only to corporations by the words "shares of stocks", and only to those
engaged in agriculture, commerce, and industry, nevertheless, all juridical persons must be deemed included.
# A share of stock in a gold mining corporation is also personal property; but the gold mine itself, as well as any land of the
corporation, is regarded as real property by the law. The certificate itself evidencing ownership of the share, as well as the
share itself, is regarded as personal property. Being personal, it may be the object of a chattel mortgage (Chua Guan vs.
Samahang Magsasaka, Inc. 62 Phil 472)
# A half interest in drugstore business is personal property capable of being the subject of a chattel mortgage (Strochecher vs.
Ramirez, 44 Phil 933). However, a half-interest in a drugstore, considered as a building, (not a bussiness) is a real right in
real property and is therefore by itself a real property.
CLASSIFICATION OF MOVABLES:
Art. 418. Movable property is either consumable or non-consumable. To the 1st class belongs those movables w/c cannot be used
in a manner appropriate to their nature w/o being consumed, to the 2 nd class belong all others.
As to nature:
1. Consumables - Those whose use according to their nature destroys the substance of the thing or causes their loss to the
owner. Food is an example of a consumable thing.
2. Non-consumables - any other kind of movable property.
Note: It is the intention of the parties to a contract that determines whether the object is fungible or non-fungible and not the
consumable or non-consumable nature of the thing.
CHARACTERISTICS:
1. They may be real or personal
2. They cannot be levied or attached;
3. They cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law;
4. They cannot be acquired by prescription;
5. They are outside the commerce of men;
6. They cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement.
Property for PUBLIC USE = can be used by everybody, even by strangers or aliens in accordance with its nature; but nobody can
exercise over it the rights of a private owner
Thus, no private person can have a property right in the use of a street for his private business, nor can he acquire over it such
a right to possession as would require the exercise of possessory actions
Page 8 of 82
Public Service = not for the general use but for some state function (i.e., government hospitals, Malcolm Hall)
Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the
state.
B In the case of Faustino vs. Dir. of Lands, L-12958, May 30, 1960, the Supreme Court, citing Natividad vs. Dir. of Lands, CA
37 OG 2905 said that only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the authority and power to make the
declaration that any land so gained by the sea is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of
special industries.
B If no such declaration has been made by the said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain.
Consequently, until there is made a formal declaration on the part of the government through the executive department or
the legislative, the parcel in question continues to be part of the public domain and cannot be subject to acquisitive
prescription
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property.
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities and municipalities consist of the provincial roads, city streets, and
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades and public works for public service paid for by said
provinces, cities or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, w/o prejudice to the
provisions of special laws.
Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial property of the State and LGU’s, consist of all property
belonging to private persons, either collectively or individually.
Art 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual declaration, the expression “immovable things or property,” or
movable things or property” is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and 2.
Whenever the word “muebles” or “furniture,” is used alone, it shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial
securities, stocks, and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses, or carriages and their
accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other thins which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or
ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears.
OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL:
Art 427: Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. A person has the right to control a thing particularly in his possession,
enjoyment, disposition, and recovery, subject to no restriction except those imposed by the law.
Definition:
Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to:
a. control a thing particularly in his possession
b. enjoy
c. dispose
Page 10 of 82
d. recover
subject to no restrictions except those imposed by law
Kinds of Ownership
1. Full – includes all the rights of an owner
2. Naked – ownership where the right to use the fruits has been denied
a. Naked + usufruct = full
b. Usufruct = full – naked
c. Naked = full – usufruct
3. Sole – where the ownership is vested in only one person
4. Co-ownership – when it is vested in 2 or more owners
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing w/o other limitations than those established by law.
The owner also has the right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
SELF-HELP doctrine:
Art. 429. The owner of lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.
Taken from Article 227 of the German Civil Code which provides:
An act impelled by legitimate necessity shall not be unlawful. Legitimate necessity consists in the defense indispensable to
repel, personally or through another, an actual or unjust situation.
Principle of Self-Help:
B It is lawful to repel force by means of force. It implies that the state of things to be defended enjoys juridical protection.
B It is sort of self-defense, where the use of such necessary force to protect proprietary or possessory rights constitutes a
justifying circumstance under the Penal Code;
b. real dispossession: force, to regain possession can only be used immediately after the dispossession. Thus, if Juan without
Pedro’s permission picks up a book belonging to the latter and runs off with it, Pedro can pursue Juan and recover the book
by force.
Note: There is no obligation to indemnify for the damage caused by the defense against unlawful aggression or against dangerous
objects.
1. In the case of People vs. Polinar, attack against one’s property must be coupled w/ an attack against the person for it to be
justified
2. BUT in recent cases such as in People vs. Narvaez, the SC ruled that there is no necessity of an attack against one’s person to
justify his acts of defending his property
3. This is in line w/ the Doctrine of Self-Help and under Art. 429 – force may be used even w/o threatened bodily danger –
provided that defense and NOT vengeance, is involved
Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenement by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other
means w/o detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.
Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a 3rd person.
Article 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.
A This article, following the same principle of self-help contained in the second part of Article 429, allows the use of defensive
force to preserve an existing situation, as against an external event which the passive subject is entitled to repel as much as
an unlawful aggression by another.
A Superior to the Doctrine of Self-Held
A Examples of danger contemplated by this article are
o the attack of animals,
o the spread of fire,
o the threat of flood, etc.
A The attacking animal, belonging to another may be killed by the victim, a house in the path of a fire may be demolished; and
a dike may be destroyed at one point to prevent a flood over other places.
A The law permits the injury or destruction of things belonging to another provided this is necessary to avert a greater danger.
Requisites:
1. Existence of an evil sought to be avoided;
2. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it;
4. The means employed is necessary and indispensable to avert danger
Civil Liability:
1. Art 429 = no civil liability
2. Art 432 = the person/s benefited are civilly liable
Effect of mistake
A The right to act in a state of necessity depends upon the objective existence of the danger with the requisites provided by law.
A If through error, one believed himself to be in a state of necessity, or used means in excess of the requirements, his acts
would be illicit and the owner of the property may use against him the defensive force authorized in Article 429.
Effect of negligence
A The law does not require that the person acting in a state of necessity be free from negligence in the creation of such
situation.
A Thus, if a person picks up an unknown object in a drug store and eats it, thinking it to be candy, and it turns out to be poison,
he can lawfully drink any antidote he may find in the store, even without the consent of the owner
Basis of liability
The obligation to indemnity does not depend upon imputability. The basis of the liability is the benefit derived.
Conflict of rights
The right of self-help under Article 420 is not available against an act in a state of necessity.
Art. 433. Actual possession under the claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must
resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on
the weakness of the defendant’s title.
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment
of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied w/, the courts shall protect and, in the proper case, restore the owner in his
possession.
Just compensation
A The fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained (Mla. Railroad vs. Velasquez 32 Phil 286)
A The market value of the condemned property plus consequential damages less consequential benefits (Mla. Railroad vs.
Fabie, 17 Phil. 208)
A Incidental or consequential benfits may be set off only against the consequential damages, and not against the basic value of
the property taken
A The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION.
A Value determined at the time of the TAKING or at the time of the FILING of the cases, whichever comes first.
compensation under the decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment or judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the Court
inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination.
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the
owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. (police
power)
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any
works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special
laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
Art. 438. 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.
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.
Discovery is by chance = means “by good luck” – implying that one who intentionally looks for treasure is embraced in the
provisions
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Article 440: The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or
which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially
Accession:
0 The right of a property owner to everything which is produced thereby or which is incorporated or attached
thereto.
0 “To the owner of the principal belongs the accessory"
0 Accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership because
o because accession presupposes a previously existing ownership over the principal
o It is a right implicitly included in ownership
o It is one of the attributes or characteristics w/c will make up the concept of dominion of ownership
DISCRETA (Produced)
Natural Industrial Civil
Spontaneous Those Rents of
products of produced buildings;
the soil; the by lands of Price of
young and any kind leases;
Page 13 of 82
CONTINUA (Incorporated)
Real Personal
Industrial Natural Adjunction Mixture Specification
Building, Alluvium, Engraftment, Confusion Labor;
Planting, Avulsion, attachment, (liquid), Materials
Sowing Change of weaving, Commixtion
course of painting, (solid)
rivers, writing
Formation
of islands
General Rule:
Art. 441. To the owner belongs
1. The natural fruits
2. The industrial fruits
3. The civil fruits.
Instances when the owner of land does not own the fruits:
1. Possessor in good faith of the land. (He owns the fruits already received [Art 544(1));
2. Usufructuary (Art 566);
3. Lessee gets the fruits of the land (Art 1654; of course, the owner gets the civil fruits in the form of rentals);
4. In the contract of antichresis, the antichretic creditor gets the fruits, although of course, said fruits should be
applied first, to the interest, if any is owing, and then to the principal amount of the loan (Art 2132)
Art. 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil and the young and other products of animals.
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor.
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of
perpetual or life annuities or other similar income.
0 A leased a female animal from B. During the period of lease, the animal produced gave birth. Who owns
the young?
0 A, because a lease contract is onerous. Here, by virtue of the lease contract, the general rule that the owner
of the female is the owner of the young, should give way.
0 Suppose in the above problem, A was merely given the animal by way of commodatum. Would the answer
be the same?
0 No. This time, the owner of the female retains ownership in view of the gratuitous contract.
Talisay Milling, in order to obtain a loan from the bank, requested one of its sugar planters, X, to mortgage
X’s land as security. As a reward, Talisay gave X a bonus. The bonus was later claimed by:
a. the creditor of X
b. the bank – w/c reasoned out that as mortgagee, it was entitled to the fruit and that the bonus should be
considered as civil fruits
Who is entitled to the bonus?
ANS: The creditor of X. The bank as mortgagee is not entitled to the fruit of the land mortgaged. Moreover,
the bonus is not civil fruits. It is not income obtained or derived from the land itself, but income obtained as
compensation for the risk assumed by the owner.
Art. 443. He (landowner) who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a 3 rd person (in
bad faith) in their production, gathering and preservation.
0 Art. 449 refers only to existing or ungathered crops, because here, the landowner acquires the fruits w/o
indemnifying the planter by the principle of accession continua.
0 Art. 443 applies when the crops have already been gathered – hence accession continua cannot apply –
therefore the principle of accession does not apply here
1. Art. 443 does not apply when the planter is in good faith because if he is, he is entitled to the fruits already
received, hence there is no necessity of reimbursing him
2. The refundable expenses:
Page 14 of 82
a. must have been used for production, gathering or preservation of the fruits and NOT for the improvement
of the property
b. must have been necessary and not luxurious or excessive
Art. 444. Only such as manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits.
With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother, although unborn.
General Rule:
Article 445: Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made
thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions in the following articles.
This article deals with accession continua more specifically accession industrial – BUILDING, PLANTING,
SOWING
Art. 446. All works, sowing and planting are presumed made by the owner an at his expense, unless the
contrary is proved.
1st case:
Landowner is the builder/planter/sower and is using the materials of another.
(mem) Article 447: The owner of the land who makes thereon personally or through another, plantings,
constructions or works with the materials of another shall pay their value; and if he acted in bad faith, he shall
also be obliged to the reparation of damages.
The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to
the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed.
However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event,
with a right to be indemnified for damages.
Z Under Article 447, the landowner himself (as distinguished from Article 448) makes the PLANTINGS,
CONSTRUCTIONS OR WORKS on his land, BUT with the materials of another person.
Z In such a situation, a NEW THING is produced (i.e. something that is built or constructed on a land by the
landowner with the materials of another), but does not result in co-ownership. The owner, therefore, of
the materials does not become part owner of the new thing. He is only entitled to recover their value.
Z In short, the law gives the LANDOWNER, who acted in good faith, the right to APPROPRIATE the new
thing provided that he INDEMNIFIES the owner of the materials.
Z Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to realize.
May the land owner – builder/planter/sower choose to return the materials instead of reimbursing their value
even without the consent of the owner of the materials?
It depends:
1. If no damage has been made to the materials, or they have not been transformed as a result of the
construction, they may be returned at the land owner’s expense.
2. If damage has been made or there has been transformation, they cannot be returned anymore.
Suppose the land owner – builder/planter/sower has already demolished or removed the plantings, constructions
or works, is the owner of the materials still entitled to claim them?
There are different opinions on this matter but the best rule seems to be that the OM is still entitled to get
them since the law makes no distinction. Moreover, the land owner may insist on returning them for evidently
there is no accession.
Z In case of alienation by the landowner, the owner of the materials may go against the new owner, because
he is the one benefited by the accession (Pacific Farms vs. Esguerra 30 SCRA 684)
2nd case:
Builder/Planter/Sower builds, plants, or sows on another’s land using his own materials.
(mem) Art 448: The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown, or planted in good faith shall
have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided
for in Article 546 and 548 or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and one who
sowed, the proper rent.
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case
of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Z This article applies only if the builder, planter or sower is in good faith.
Z See also Articles 454 and 447
Page 16 of 82
3. To demand the demolition or removal of the work Must remove luxurious improvements if it will not
at the expense of the builder/planter/ sower cause injury and LO does not want to acquire them.
Bad Faith Bad Faith
Treat as if both are in good faith.
Obligations
1. Land owner must pay for necessary expenses for
preservation.
2. Land owner must pay BPS expenses under Article
443 if applicable
Bad Faith Bad Faith
(Same as though acted in good faith under Article 453) (Same as though acted in good faith under Article 453)
IF THE BUILDER, PLANTER IS IN BAD FAITH and the Landowner in good faith): (Articles 449, 450,
and 451)
1. He loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity (except necessary expenses for the
preservation of the land (Article 452);
2. He may be required to demolish or remove what is built or planted or sown.
3. The builder may be compelled to pay the price of the land (whether or not the value of the land is
considerably higher than the value of the house) and the sower proper rent;
4. He is liable to pay damages.
would unjustly enrich the private respondents who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highly valued
income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount.
The trial court also erred in ordering the petitioner to pay monthly rentals equal to the aggregate rentals paid
by the lessees of the apartment building. Since, the private respondents opted to appropriate the apartment
building; the petitioner is thus entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the apartment building, until he is
paid the proper indemnity, as well as of the portion of the lot where the building was constructed. This is so,
because the right to retain the improvements while the corresponding indemnity is not paid implies the tenancy
or possession in fact of the land which it is built, planted or sown. The petitioner not having been so paid, he
was entitled to retain ownership of the building and, necessarily, the income there from (Mendoza vs. de
Guzman, 54 SCRA 164)
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or down,
w/o right of indemnity.
Art. 450. The owner if the land on w/c anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand:
1. the demolition of the work, or
2. that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of
the person who built, planted or sowed;
or he may compel
Art. 451. In the cases of the 2 preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to the damage from the builder,
planter or sower.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of
preservation of the land.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted and sowed on the land of
another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and another shall be the same as though
both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done:
1. w/ his knowledge and
2. w/o opposition on his part.
Art. 454. When the landowner acted din bad faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the
provisions of Art. 447 shall apply.
3rd case:
Builder/Planter/Sower builds, plants, or sows on another’s land with materials owned by third person
Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a 3 rd person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the
land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no
property w/ w/c to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by Art. 450.
If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may
demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
AND
Page 19 of 82
Obligations
1. Land owner must pay for
necessary expenses for
preservation.
2. Land owner must pay
builder/planter/sower expenses
under Article 443* if
applicable
Bad Faith Bad Faith Bad Faith
(Same as though acted in good (Same as though acted in good (Same as though acted in good
faith under Article 453) faith under Article 453) faith under Article 453)
Bad Faith Good Faith Good Faith
Subsidiarily liable to the owner of 1. Remove improvements plus 1. Remove materials if possible
the materials for value of damages against the land without injury
materials owner; or 2. Collect value of materials from
2. Demand payment for builder/planter/ sower. Land
improvement plus damages owner is subsidiarily liable
Bad Faith Bad Faith Good Faith
1. If the owner of the materials 1. Right to receive payment for
does not remove the materials value of materials from the
and the builder/planter/sower builder/planter/sower and the
pays, the land owner can land owner is subsidiarily
acquire the improvement by liable plus damages; or
paying the 2. Absolute right of removal of
builder/planter/sower the work constructed in any
2. If the owner of the materials event plus damages
does not remove the materials,
and the builder/planter/sower
pays, the land owner can
obligate the builder/planter to
buy the land or collect rent
from the sower. However, the
land owner cannot obligate the
BP to buy if the value of land
is more then the building or
planting.
3. The land owner is subsidiarily
liable to the owner of the
materials.
Good Faith Bad Faith Good Faith
Page 21 of 82
Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence,
w/c gives right to damages under Art. 2176.
ALLUVIUM:
Art 457: To the owners of land adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters.
This article applies also to creeks, streams, lakes (although the soil deposited may not be called alluvium.)
Alluvium
The soil deposited or added to (accretion) the lands adjoining the banks of rivers and gradually received as
an effect of the current of the waters. By law, the accretion is owned by the owner of the estate fronting the river
bank (riparian owner).
Accretion
The process whereby soil is deposited, alluvium is the soil deposited on river banks.
! The riparian owner may not necessarily make an express act of possession, it being that the accretion is
automatic the moment the soil deposit appears; (Agne vs Director 181S793)
! On the other hand, an alluvial deposit does not automatically become registered land simply because the lot
which receives it is covered by a Torrens title. Although the owner of the land on which the alluvial
deposit is made becomes automatically the owner of the alluvial deposit, the law not requiring any act of
possession on his part from the moment the deposit becomes manifest. Still ownership of a piece of land
is one thing and registration under the Torrens System is another. In order that the alluvial deposit may
be entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility, the same must be placed under the operation of the
Land Registration Law. An unregistered alluvial property is therefore subject to acquisition through
prescription by third person (Grande vs. CA, 6-30-62)
Page 22 of 82
! In Zapanta v. Director (10/30/62), it was held that accreted lands adjoining non-navigable and non-floatable
rivers which are formed gradually as a result of the setting up or erection of fish traps belong to the
riparian owner and not to the public domain, in the absence of evidence showing that the setting-up of
fish traps was expressly intended or designed by the riparian owner to cause or bring about accretion.
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural
decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.
AVULSION
Article 459: Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent segregate from an estate on its bank a known
portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged
retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years.
Avulsion
The process whereby the current of a RIVER, CREEK, or TORRENT segregates from an estate on its bank
a KNOWN PORTION of land and transfers it to another estate.
Avulsion implies a violent tearing or breaking away. It may also be referred to as “delayed accession” in
the sense that if the owner abandons the soil involved, or fails to remove (not merely claim) the same within
two years, the land to which it had been attached acquires ownership thereof.
If the cause of the damage is due to artificial means, is the riparian owner entitled to compensation?
Ans: BAES vs. CA: If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property
due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river
is effected through artificial means. The loss to of Baes of the land covered by the canal was the result of a
deliberate act on the part of the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. It
was therefore obligated to compensate the Baeses for the loss.
Alluvium Avulsion
The deposit of the soil is gradual Sudden or abrupt process may be seen
The soil cannot be identified The portion segregated is identifiable or verifiable
Belongs to the owner of the property to which it is Belongs to the owner from whom the property was
Page 23 of 82
attached detached
Art. 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon
which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they
shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a safe place.
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto
belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the
owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed. (repealed by PD 1067 Sec 58)
Art. 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, opens a new bed through a private estate,
this bed shall become of public dominion.
Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof
isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the
estate by the current.
If a river bed simply dries up without changing its course, then the dried up river bed belongs to the state
since no private lands are injured.
Formation of island
Art. 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on
navigable or floatable rivers belong to the State.
Art. 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and
non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of
both margins if the island is in the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves.
If a single island thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer
margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a
way that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the
former owner thereof for its value.
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has
been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection. [1](test of intention)
Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two things
incorporated is the principal one, the [2] thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two
things of equal value, that of the [3] greater volume.
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone,
canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.
([4] that which has greater merits = from the combined consideration of utility and volume)
Page 24 of 82
Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand
their separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more
precious than the principal thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even though the thing to
which it has been incorporated may suffer some injury.
Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the
thing incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the damages
he may have suffered.
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing
shall have a right to choose between the former paying him its value or that the thing belonging to him be
separated, even though for this purpose it be necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases,
furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.
If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the knowledge and without the objection of the
other, their respective rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith.
Art. 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity, he
may demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to that
employed, or else in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal.
ADJUNCTION
PRINCIPAL ACCESSORY
Good Faith Bad Faith Good Faith Bad Faith
acquires the liable to indemnify has the right to be loses the accessory
accessory the value of the indemnified for the plus damages
can demand accessory value of the must indemnify for
separation can be compelled accessory the value of the
to separate objects can demand principal
even if it results in separation if it does liable for damages
injury not cause injury
is liable for if value of the
damages accessory is greater
than the value of
the principal – can
demand separation
even if it causes
injury
Art. 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture
occurs by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a
right proportional to the part belonging to him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
Art. 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different kinds are mixed
or confused, the rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the preceding article.
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him
thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the
other thing with which his own was mixed.
MIXTURE
How Mixed Requirement Result
By:
will good faith co-ownership
chance things not separable w/o respective interests are
accident causing injury proportionate to the value of
consent the value of the materials
Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of
a different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material
for its value.
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value, its owner may, at his option,
appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or demand
indemnity for the material.
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to
appropriate the work to himself without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter that he
Page 25 of 82
indemnify him for the value of the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is
considerably more than that of the material.
SPECIFICATION
PRINCIPAL ACCESSORY
Good Faith Bad Faith Good Faith Bad Faith
appropriates new thing loses his work w/o appropriates the new loses his
except when the being indemnified thing except when material w/o
materials are more for his labor the value of the being
precious than the new is liable for the resultant work is indemnified
thing value of the more valuable is liable for the
must indemnify the materials must indemnify the value of the
value of materials is liable for value of labor work
damages is liable for
damages
DISTINCTIONS
Adjunction Mixture Specification
1. involves at least 2 things 1. involves at least 2 things 1. may involve only 1 thing but the form
2. as a rule, accessory 2. as a rule, co-ownership is changed
follows the principal results 2. as a rule, accessory follows the
3. the things joined retains 3. the things mixed or principal
their nature confused may retain or 3. the new object retains or preserves the
lose their respective nature of the original object
natures
Art. 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly appreciated.
QUIETING OF TITLE
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.
Please observe that when the instrument is not valid on its face, the remedy does not apply.
Test:
Would the owner of the property in an action at law brought by the adverse party and founded upon the
instrument or claim, be required to offer evidence to defeat a recovery?
If proof is essential, the cloud exists; if proof is not needed, no cloud is cast.
He must also show that he has interest on the property, aside from proving the “cloud.”
Example:
Alma's land was sold by Roger (a forger) to B, a buyer in good faith. Alma’s name had been forged by
Roger in the deed of sale. The sale on its face is apparently valid, with Alma's name indicted as the seller. In
truth, however, the sale is defective because of the forgery. Alama’s remedy is an action to quiet title.
Sabellona. However, the Court found that the agreement was not one of partition, because there was no property
to partition and the parties were not co-owners. Rather, it is in a nature of a trust agreement.
Note:
An action to quiet title instituted against a co-owner is not res adjudicata as to the other co-owners if they
were not made parties thereto.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property w/c is the subject
matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or to remove a cloud therefrom when the contract,
instrument or other obligation:
1. has been extinguished or
2. has terminated, or
3. has been barred by extinctive prescription.
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendants all benefits he may have received from the latter, or
reimburse him for the expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff’s benefit.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in
conflict w/ this Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules
of court as the SC shall promulgate.
Page 29 of 82
Art. 482. If a building, wall, column or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged
to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.
If the proprietor does not comply w/ his obligation, the administrative authorities may order the demolition
of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take measure to insure public safety.
Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the land or tenement of
another or to travelers over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged to fell and remove it;
and should he not do so, it shall be done at his expense by order of the administrative authorities.
CO-OWNERSHIP
Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different
persons. In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of
this title.
Under this article, co-ownership may exist as to rights, and is not limited to corporal things, (Samaniego vs.
Villajin, CA OG 3137)
Sources of co-ownership:
1. Law = party walls; party ditches; intestate succession; properties acquired by a man and a woman whose
marriage is void,
2. Contract = two persons buy a parcel of land sharing in the purchase price and agree not to divide the land
for ten years;
3. CHANCE = commixtion, confusion, hidden treasure.
4. OCCUPATION = (Punzalan vs. Boon Liat 44 Phil 320) when a wild beast is caught by several persons;
5. WILL = when two persons are named as legatees or devises of an undivided thing:
CO-OWNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP
Co-ownership may arise from other causes (i.e., will or Partnerships are created only by agreement or contract
law)
The purpose of co-ownership is for collective The purpose of partnership is profit
enjoyment and to maintain the unity and preservation
of the thing owned in common
In co-ownership, there is no juridical personality In partnership, there is a juridical personality distinct
distinct from the members from the members
A stipulation that a co-ownership be created for a A partnership may be created for a period of more than
period of more than 10 years is void 10 years
In co-ownership, a special authority is needed for In partnership, there is generally mutual representation
representation among co-owners by the partners
In a co-ownership there is freedom of disposition of a In a partnership, a partner cannot transfer his rights to
co-owner’s share 3rd persons without the consent of the others
Death or incapacity of 1 of the co-owners have no The partnership can be extinguished by the death or
effect on the existence of a co-ownership incapacity of 1 of the partners
The distribution of profits is invariable in co- The distribution of profits is subject to stipulation in
ownership by virtue of Article 485 partnerships
Rule on the shares of co-owners in the benefits and charges (Article 485):
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their
respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is
proved.
! The share in the benefits and charges is proportional to the interest of each.
o Hence, if one co-owner owns 2/3, he shares 2/3 of the taxes;
! Contrary stipulation is void. To do so would be to run against the nature of co-ownership;
! Each co-owner shares proportionately in the accretion or alluvium of the property. This is because an
increase in area benefits all.
LIMITATIONS on co-owner's right to use the thing owned in common (Article 486)
Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the
purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent
the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by
agreement, express or implied.
1. Can be used only according to the purpose for which it was intended;
a. To determine the purpose for which the property is intended, the agreement of the co-owners (express or
implied) should govern.
b. In default of any agreement: a) that to which the thing is ordinarily adapted according to its nature; or b)
the use to which it has been previously devoted.
c. Thus, if the co-owners of a vessel agree that it should be used as a warehouse or storage place for grain,
one of the co-owners cannot order the grain removed and use the vessel for maritime transportation.
d. Mere tolerance on the part of the co-owners cannot legalize the change in the use of the thing front that
intended by the co-owners.
e. Prescription cannot be invoked to establish a right to such different use, because mere tolerance cannot
be the basis of prescription.
2. The right to use must not prejudice the interest of the co-ownership;
a. A co-owner cannot devote community property to his exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership.
b. Thus, where the co-owners have agreed to lease a building owned in common, a co-owner cannot retain
it for his use without paying the proper rent.
3. The right to use must not be exercised to prevent the others from making use thereof according to their own
right.
a. The right of enjoyment by each co-owner is limited by a similar right of others.
b. Hence, if the thing is a dwelling house, all the co-owners may live therein with their respective families,
to the extent possible.
c. But if one co-owner alone occupies the entire house without opposition of the others, and there is no
agreement to lease it, the other co-owners cannot demand the payment of rents. They can either
exercise an equal right to live in the house, or agree to lease it; if they fail to do so, they must bear the
consequences. It would be unjust to require the co-owner to pay rents after the other co-owners by their
silence have allowed him to use the property.
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Page 31 of 82
Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of
preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes.
Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided
interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. (refers to existing obligations or those
already incurred)
No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership. (refers to future expenses)
Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable,
first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be
decided upon by a majority as determined in article 492.
Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to different owners, if the titles of ownership do not
specify the terms under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses and there exists no agreement
on the subject, the following rules shall be observed: (PERPENDICULAR CO-OWNERSHIP)
(1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things used in common, shall be preserved at the
expense of all the owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;
(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of his story; the floor of the entrance, front door,
common yard and sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners
pro rata;
(3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners pro
rata, with the exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the first to the second story
shall be preserved at the expense of all, except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first
story; and so on successively.
Article 491. None of the co-owners shall without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned
in common, even though benefits for all would result there from. However, if the withholding of the consent by
one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate
relief.
Alteration is a change:
1. which is more or less permanent.
2. which changes the use of the thing; and
3. which prejudices the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by the others.
! It is also a change (not limited to physical) of state of the thing or the withdrawal of the use from that
intended.
! Alteration is an act of ownership
! Example: Sale; donation; or mortgage of the property.
In determining alterations, it is sometimes necessary to consider the nature of the thing itself. Thus:
! when a thing does not require any modification for its enjoyment, whatever modifications or change that is
made will be considered an alteration.
! But when a thing in its nature requires changes, such as industry or business, in its exploitation, such
modifications and variations should be considered as falling under acts of administration.
Effect of tacit consent - although the co-owner who is deemed to have tacitly consented to the alteration cannot
ask for the demolition, neither can he be held liable to answer for any part of the expenses incurred therein,
because the obligation to pay such expenses cannot be deemed to be the subject of his tacit consent.
Art. 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the
majority of the co-owners shall be binding. (FINANCIAL MAJORITY)
There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling
interest in the object of the co-ownership.
Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those
interested in the property owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order such
measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in
common, the preceding provision shall apply only to the part owned in common.
Legal Redemption:
Art 1620: A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-
owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the
redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion
to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned common
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from
the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not
be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given
written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.
This is implied from the latter portion of Article 1623 which requires that before a register of deeds can
record a sale by a co-owner, there must be presented to him, an affidavit to the effect that the notice of the sale
had been sent in writing to the other co-owners.
Article 1619 of the Civil Code bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and "to be subrogated under the
same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract", and to avoid any controversy as to the terms and
conditions under which the right to redeem may be exercised, it is best that the period therefore should not be
deemed to have commenced unless the notice of the disposition is made after the formal deed of disposal has
been duly executed.
It is immaterial when she might have actually come to know about said deed, it appearing she has never
been shown a copy thereof through a written communication by either any of the petitioners-purchasers or any
of her co-owners-vendees.
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.
(impt) Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at
any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years,
shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
General Rule: No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any
time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Reasons:
1. To avoid conflicts in management;
2. The law discourages co-ownership;
3. The disposition or enjoyment of the thing owned in common is subject to the desire of all co-owners;
Exceptions:
When there exists a PROHIBITION to partition because:
1. of the existence of an AGREEMENT between the parties;
a. not more than 10 years, extendible by a new agreement after the termination of the original period;
hence, no automatic renewal, otherwise, the intention of the law would be defeated.
b. If more than 10 years, void as to the excess;
c. If prohibition is perpetual, valid only up to 10 years;
d. If agreement subject to a resolutory condition, the agreement ends upon fulfillment of the condition
provided it does not exceed 10 years
2. the LAW does not allow partition; (conjugal partnership as a general rule),
3. of the WILL of the donor or testator; (the prohibition may be up to 20 years),
4. physical partition would render the property unserviceable (i.e., automobile, partition shall proceed in
accordance with the rules set forth under Article 498).
5. the legal NATURE of the property does not allow partition (party wall)
Exception:
1. When a co-owner gives notice to the other co-owners that he is repudiating the co-ownership and that he
is claiming ownership of the entire property:
2. The requirement of continuous, open, public, adverse possession for the period of time required must be
met;
Robles v. CA
Hilario did not have possession of the subject property; neither did he exclude petitioners from the use and
enjoyment thereof, as they have indisputably shared in its fruits.
Likewise, his act of entering into the mortgage contract with the bank cannot be construed to be a
repudiation of the co-ownership. As an absolute owner of his undivided interest in the land, he had the right to
alienate his share, as he in fact did.
Neither should his payment of land taxes in his name, as agreed upon by the co owners, be construed as
repudiation of the co-ownership. The assertion that the declaration of the co-ownership was tantamount to
repudiation was belied by the continued occupation and possession of the disputed property by the petitions s as
owners.
! Acts which may be considered adverse insofar as strangers are concerned, may not be considered adverse
insofar as co-owners are concerned.
! In other words, it is harder for a co-owner to acquire properties compared to that of strangers. Hence, mere
actual possession by one co-owner will not give rise to the inference that the possession was adverse.
This is because a co-owner is after all entitled to possession of the property. There must indeed be a
definite repudiation and the possession is to the exclusion of other co-owners.
! The period of prescription commences from the date of the repudiation.
most expedient means of eventually dissolving the co-ownership, and the life of said partnership to end when
the object of its creation shall have been attained.
Art. 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of Art. 494, the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the
thing owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for w/c it is intended.
But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance w/ Art. 498.
Art. 496. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent w/ this Code.
Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in
common and object to its being affected w/o their concurrence.
But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made
notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, w/o prejudice to the right if the debtor or assignor
to maintain its validity.
Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one
of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed.
Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not prejudice 3 rd persons, who shall retain the rights
of mortgage, servitude, or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made.
Personal rights pertaining to a 3rd persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition.
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for
expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to
each of the other co-owners.
Law on Waters
Art. 4 of PD 1067: Waters, as used in this Code, refers to water under the grounds, water above the ground,
water in the atmosphere and the waters of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines
Sec 2 Art XII of the Constitution: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical of
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution.
Qualified to apply:
Art. 15 of PD 1067: Only citizens of the Philippines, of legal age, as well as juridical persons, who are duly
qualified by law to exploit and develop water resources, may apply for water permits. (only Filipino citizens
and corporations)
Term of Permit:
Page 36 of 82
Art. 28 of PD 1067: Water permits shall continue to be valid as long as water is beneficially used; however, it
maybe suspended on the grounds of non-compliance with approved plans and specifications or schedules of
water distribution; use of water for a purpose other than that for which it was granted; non-payment of water
charges; wastage; failure to keep records of water diversion, when required; and violation of any term or
condition of any permit or rules and regulations promulgated by the Council.
Temporary permits may be issued for the appropriation and use of water for short periods under special
circumstances. (Maximum period is the beneficial used of water)
Office in charge:
National Water Resources Board (NWRB) = formerly Nat’l Water Resources Council
~ created by PD 424 in March 28, 1974
~ conferred with regulatory and executory powers, such as to coordinate and integrate water resources
development activities of the country as well as to determine, adjudicate and grant water rights, for which
purpose it may issue needful rules and regulations
~ also functions as advisory to the NEDA, recommending the adoption of general policies and guidelines,
including plans and programs for water resources development
BF Northwest Homeowners Assn. vs. IAC [G.R. No. L-72370. May 29, 1987.]
F: NWRC approved water rates allowing BF Homes, Inc. to charge higher rates to its customers. Petitioner
appealed NWRC decision to RTC which dismissed the appeal saying it has no jurisdiction
H: RTC has jurisdiction since NWRC is ranked with “inferior courts”
The National Water Resources Council (NWRC) was was vested with the general power to coordinate and
integrate water resources development, and among others, to formulate and promulgate rules and regulations for
the exploitation and optimum utilization of water resources, including the imposition on water appropriators of
such fees or charges as may be deemed necessary by the Council for water resources development.
Plainly, the NWRC is ranked with "inferior courts," – MTC, MTCC, etc. Explicit as well is the proviso that
NWRC decisions on water rights controversies are appealable to the Court of First Instance (now RTC)
The logical conclusion, therefore, is that jurisdiction over actions for annulment of NWRC decisions lies
with the Regional Trial Courts, particularly, when we take note of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court over NWRC decisions covers such broad and all embracing grounds as grave abuse of
discretion, questions of law, and questions of fact and law (Art. 89, P.D. No. 1067). This conclusion is also in
keeping with the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which vests Regional Trial Courts with original
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. (Sec. 21 [1], B.P. Blg. 129) relating to acts
or omissions of an inferior Court (Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court).
~ Art 502 of the CC: enumerates what belongs to the State. This is the same with Art 5 of PD 1067.
~ Art 503 of the CC: water subject to private ownership. This was not carried over in PD 1067
~ Implication: water belongs to the state, whether found in public or private land. Water cannot be of private
ownership. Only the use of such water, not ownership is granted in administrative concession.
~ So, you cannot drill a well without prior permit
POSSESSION
Classes of possession:
1. Possession is one's own name or possession in the name of another (Article 524);
2. Possession in the concept of an owner or possession in the concept of a holder (Article 525),
3. Possession in good faith or possession in bad faith (Article 526)
Degrees of Possession
1. The mere holding of a thing without the title, or the holding of a thing in violation of the right of the
owner.
a. Example: A thief possesses a thing without title and in violation of the right of the owner
2. Possession with juridical title, but not that of ownership. Example:
a. Contract of lease
b. Usufruct
c. the possession by the tenant;
d. possession by the depository, by the bailee, by the lessee.
e. All these have juridical titles but they are not the owners.
Page 38 of 82
3. Real Possessory Right = Possession with just title not sufficient to possess ownership.
a. Example: A in good faith buys an automobile from B who delivers the same to A and who merely
pretended to be the owner thereof
4. Possession with a title of dominium. This is possession arising from ownership.
Note: Possessor who is merely tolerated by owner is a possessor in the concept of holder and such possession
does not hinder a valid transfer of ownership by the owner thru its sale to another.
Ownership Possession
exists when a thing pertaining to one person is holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right
completely subjected to his will in a manner not 1. possession in the concept of an owner = A
prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of possessor in the concept of an owner himself
others or one who claims to be so
confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is 2. possession of a holder = acknowledges in
the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale. another a superior right which he believes to
be ownership, whether his belief be right or
wrong
Page 39 of 82
Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when they
sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses.
The records show that petitioner occupied the property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was
merely tolerated by his parents. An owner's act of allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free does not
create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latter's favor. Consequently, it is of no moment
that petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a
hindrance to a valid transfer of ownership.
On the other hand, petitioner's subsequent claim of ownership as successor to his mother's share in the
conjugal asset belied by the fact that the property was not included in the inventory of the estate submitted by
his father to the intestate court. This buttresses the ruling that indeed the property was no longer considered
owned by petitioner’s parents.
The Court likewise upheld the Court of Appeals’ holding that "the mortgage to PBCom by the Magpayo
spouses is valid notwithstanding that the Transfer Certificate of Title over the property was issued to them after
the mortgage contract was entered into. Registration does not confer ownership, it is merely evidence of such
ownership over a particular property. The deed of sale operates of a formal or symbolic delivery of the property
sold and authorizes the buyer to use the document as proof of ownership. All said, the Magpayo spouses were
already the owners when they mortgaged the property to PBCom."
Note: There can be no acquisitive prescription of land if the possession is in the concept of holder.
Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests
the burden of proof.
Note:
Transferee of an unregistered parcel of land for value from a buyer and who took immediate possession
thereof has the benefit of good faith in his favor. Ordinary acquisitive prescription of 10 years is applicable.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription demands, as aforesaid, that the possession be "in good faith and with just
title” The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is
received has been the owner thereof and could thereby transmit that ownership. There is, upon the other hand,
just title when the adverse claimant come into possession of the property through any of the modes recognized
by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but that the grantor is neither the owner nor in a
position to transmit the right.
A party’s mere refusal to believe that a defect exists of his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the
existence of a defect in his vendor's title will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards
develop that the title was in fact defective.
Hence, if circumstances exist that require a prudent man to investigate; he will be in bad faith if he does not
investigate (Leung Lee vs. Strong 37 Phil 464: Republic vs. CA, 102 SCRA 331)
If there is no flaw, the article does not apply.
Uy v. CA (107439; 7/20/1995)
F: Catador offered to sell his 4,167 sq. m. land to Sauler who paid P45T down. Catador mortgaged said land to
SIHI so Sauler renegotiated and opted to buy only 555 sq. m. – but separate title cannot be given since title was
with SIHI. SIHI foreclosed on the entire land, UY bought the land. Sauler argues that as a co-owner, she has the
right of redemption. Uy argues that as an innocent purchaser, she has a right over the entire lot.
H: Sauler is not a co-owner since there is no “indivisible thing”; Uy is not innocent purchaser
Uy cannot pretend to be an innocent purchaser for value since she is fully aware of Sauler’s possession.
Uy’s parents own the adjacent lot and Catador has informed Uy’s father of the sale.
Neither can SIHI, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, claim to be an innocent mortgagee.
Sunshine v. IAC: The general rule is that a mortgagee "is under no obligation to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of the certificate," Nevertheless, we
have to deviate from the general rule because of the failure of the petitioner in this case to take the necessary
precautions to ascertain if there was any flaw in the title of the Nolascos and to examine the condition of the
property they sought to mortgage. The petitioner is an .investment and financing corporation. We presume it is
experienced in its business. Ascertainment of the status and condition of properties offered to it as security for
the loans it extends must be a standard and indispensable part of its operations. Surely, it cannot simply rely on
an examination of a Torrens certificate to determine what the subject property looks like as its condition is not
apparent in the document. The land might be in a depressed area. There might be squatters on it. It might be
easily inundated. It might be an interior lot, without convenient access. These and other similar factors
determine the value of the property and so should be of practical concern to the petitioner.
Art. 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment
facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully.
Art. 529. It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired,
until the contrary is proved.
a. If we know that he acquired the thing in good faith, then it is presumed that he continues to be a
possessor in good faith up to now, until the contrary is proved.
4. Just Title: (Art 541)
a. A person who is believed to be the owner by the community has the legal presumption that he possesses
it with a just title; that he has a title to support his ownership and he cannot be obliged to show or
prove the title.
5. POSSESSION OF MOVABLES: (Art 542)
a. Possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as it is not shown or proved
that they should be excluded.
6. NON-INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION (Art 533)
a. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir w/o interruption, from the
moment of death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an
inheritance is never deemed to have accepted the same.
7. NON-INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY UNJUSTLY LOST BUT LEGALLY
RECOVERED: (Art 561)
a. One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for all purposes which
may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption.
8. POSSESSION DURING INTERVENING PERIOD: (Art 554; 1138 (2))
a. You are in actual possession of a parcel of land now. There is proof that you were in possession of this
land 10 years ago. But there is no proof that you were in possession during the intervening time. The
presumption is you were in continuous possession of the same.
9. EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF COMMON PROPERTY (Art 543)
a. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common shall be deemed to have exclusively
possessed the part w/c may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the entire period during
w/c the co-possession lasted.
Art. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession.
“Res nullius” = abandoned or ownerless property - may be possessed but cannot be acquired by prescription
because prescription presupposed prior ownership by another
however “res nullius” may be acquired by occupation
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION:
Art 531: Possession is acquired
1. by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or
2. by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or
3. by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right
Example:
1. In donation, there is no need of delivery. The moment the donation is in the form provided by law, the
donee is deemed to be in possession of the thing donated. Ownership is automatically acquired by the
donee.
2. Will upon the death of the decedent. If the will is valid, automatically, the heirs mentioned in the will are
deemed by fiction of law to be in possession of the hereditary estate. Actually and in truth, the heirs are
not in actual possession but by fiction of law, the possession by the decedent is deemed to be continued
without any interruption. (Article 533)
Tax receipts and declarations of ownership, when coupled with proof of actual possession of the property,
can be the basis of a claim for ownership through prescription. Respondent's possession was not disturbed until
1953 when the petitioner's father claimed the land. But by then, her possession, which was in the concept of an
owner -- public, peaceful, and uninterrupted had already ripened into ownership. Furthermore, she herself after
her father's demise declared and paid realty taxes for the disputed land.
Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At most they constitute mere prima
facie proof of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual,
public and adverse possession, the declaration for tax purposes does not prove ownership.
The petitioners, despite 32 years of farming the subject land, did not acquire ownership by mere occupation.
Unless coupled with the element of hostility toward the true owner, occupation and use, however long, will not
confer title by prescription or adverse possession.
The possession of a person without power cannot be acquired without the ratification of the person in whose
name the act of possession was executed.
Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from
the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.
One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same
Art. 534. On who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of the wrongful possession of
the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good
faith shall not benefit him except from the date of the death of the decedent.
Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the possession of things; but they need the assistance of
their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor.
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor
who objects thereto.
He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the
aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of
a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.
Will the status as a possessor in the concept of holder of the tenant improve if he erred in believing that the
landlord was the owner of the property?
A: No. One who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to
be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong. [Maglucot-aw vs Maglucot, 329 SCRA 78]
May a buyer of a real property be considered in good faith if he fails to inquire upon the rights of those in
possession thereof?
A: No. The rule is settled that a buyer of real property which is in possession of persons other than the seller
must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession; otherwise, without such inquiry, the
buyer can hardly be regarded as buyer in rood faith [Republic vs. de Guzman, 326 SCRA 267).
A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then
claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere
refusal to believe that such defect exists or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a
defect in the vender's title will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards it develops that the
title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defects as would have led to its discovery
had he acted with the measures of precaution which may be required of a prudent man in a like situation (Uy vs.
Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 703)
May a possessor who was ousted through force or violence deemed to be the legal possessor?
A: No. Possession cannot be acquired through force or violence. For all intents and purposes, a possessor,
even if physically ousted, is still deemed the legal possessor. (Cequena vs. Bolante, 330 SCRA 216}
What governs the properly relationship between a man and woman living together as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage?
A: Co-ownership, provided that both are not incapacitated to marry.
Property acquired by a man living with a common law wife during the subsistence of his marriage is
conjugal property, even when the property was titled in the name of the common law wife. (Adriano vs. Court
of Appeals, 328 SCRA 738)
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the
cases of co-possession.
Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession,
1. the present possessor shall be preferred;
2. if there are 2 possessors, the one longer in possession;
Page 44 of 82
3. if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and
4. if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its
possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
Possession as a Fact:
1. GENERAL RULE – Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in 2 different personalities
(2 people cannot own 1 thing at the same time)
2. EXCEPTIONS:
a. Co-possession – since here there is no conflict of interest
b. Possession in different or degrees such as:
owner in the concept of an owner
tenant in the concept of a holder
3. APPLICATION – Art. 538 applies to preference in possession whether real or personal property is
involved
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION
Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he
shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may within 10 days from the filing of the
complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within 30
days from the filing thereof.
Remedies:
Action for Action for Accion publiciana Accion
forcible entry Unlawful detainer Reivindicatoria
(FISTS)
Definition Recover material or Possession by a When entry was not Action to recover
physical possession landlord, vendor, obtained thru FISTS ownership over real
of real property when vendee or other or where the 1-year property
a person originally in person of any land or period from bringing
possession was bldg is being forcible entry or
deprived thereof by unlawfully withheld unlawful detainer has
force, intimidation, after the expiration or already lapsed
strategy, threat, or termination of the
stealth right to hold
possession, by virtue
of any contract,
express or implied
Prescription w/in 1 year from w/in 1 year from the w/in 10 years or 30
dispossession time possession years (whether
becomes unlawful (If ordinary or
fixed, then demand extraordinary
Page 45 of 82
Unlawful detainer:
1. Here, the possession was lawful in the beginning but became unlawful afterwards
2. Prior possession by the plaintiff is not always essential or a condition sine qua non
Presumption of Ownership:
Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a title for acquiring
dominion.
Art 541: A possessor in the concept of an owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a
just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.
"just title"
Refers to true and valid title – a title which by itself is sufficient to transfer ownership without the necessity
of letting the period elapse (Diolente v. Biarnessa, 7 P 232)
Example:
B brought a car from S, the owner thereof. Then S delivered the car to B. B now has a valid and true title
over the car.
Thus, if B possesses and drives the car around as an owner, other people cannot compel him to prove
ownership thereof.
Note:
For purposes of prescription, "just title" means colorable title or that title where although there was a mode
of transferring ownership, still something is wrong, because the grantor is not the owner of the thing.
Example:
In the above example, if it turns out that S is not the owner of the car and somebody else was its owner, B
would not be considered as the owner thereof because he did not acquire it from the owner of the car,
irrespective whether or not he is in good faith.
However, for purposes of prescription, his possession is just considered as “just title” of the period required
by law depending on whether he is in good faith or not.
Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as it is not shown or
proved that they should be excluded.
Art. 543. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common shall be deemed to have exclusively
possessed the part which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the entire period during which the
co-possession lasted.
Interruption in the possession of the whole or a part of a thing possessed in common shall be to the prejudice
of all the possessors. However, in case of civil interruption, the Rules of Court shall apply.
Page 46 of 82
Rules Regarding the Rights of the Possessor (in the concept of an owner)
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is legally interrupted.
Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they are gathered or severed.
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good faith in that proportion.
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall
have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the
time of the possession.
The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two possessors.
The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the possessor in good faith the right to finish the
cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the expenses of cultivation and
the net proceeds; the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this
concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other manner. (452a)
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may
retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the
person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of
paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to the principal thing, the possessor in
good faith may remove them, unless the person who recovers the possession exercises the option under
paragraph 2 of the preceding article.
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he
may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and
if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended.
Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor
could have received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of article 546 and in
article 443. The expenses incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to
the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided
that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying
the value they may have at the time he enters into possession.
Necessary expenses
~ those without which the thing would physically deteriorate or be lost
~ made for the preservation of the thing
Useful Expenses
~ those that add value to the property or increase the object’s productivity or useful for the satisfaction of
spiritual or religious yearnings or give rise to all kinds of fruits
~ if only certain or definite possessor would benefit = luxuries
~ if in general, every possessor gains = useful
Luxuries = can increase civil fruits, not the industrial or natural fruits
Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by every possessor.
Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always insure to the benefit of the person who has
succeeded in recovering possession.
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, except
in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or negligence, after the judicial summons.
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if caused by a fortuitous
event.
Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay for improvements which have ceased to exist
at the time he takes possession of the thing.
Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is presumed to have held
possession also during the intermediate period, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Abandonment
1. Definition – The voluntary renunciation of the thing
2. Requisites
a. The abandoner must have been the possessor in the concept of an owner
b. The abandoner must have the capacity to renounce or alienate
c. There must be physical relinquishment of the thing
Page 48 of 82
Assignment
1. Definition – The complete transmission of ownership rights to another person:
a. onerously – as when a thing is sold and delivered
b. gratuitously – as in the case of donation
2. Distinctions:
a. Assignment
at NO time did the thing NOT have a possessor (for possession merely changed hands or control)
may in some cases be by onerous title
b. Abandonment
there was a time, no matter how short, when the object did not have possessor at all
always gratuitous, otherwise it becomes a virtual assignment
3. NOTE – In assignment – both possession de facto and de jure are lost
Possession of Another
1. If a person is NOT in possession for more than 1 year (but less than 10 years)
a. he loses possession de facto or possession as a fact
b. this means that he can no longer bring an action for:
forcible entry or
unlawful detainer
c. since the prescription period is 1 year for such actions
d. constructive possession is also lost
e. but he may still institute an accion publiciana (for a better right of possession) to recover possession de
jure or the real right of possession
2. If a person loses possession for more than 10 years
a. he loses possession de jure or the real right of possession
b. accion publiciana or reivindicatoria is still possible
c. UNLESS prescription has set in
Art. 556. The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as they remain under the control of the
possessor, even though for the time being he may not know their whereabouts.
Art. 557. The possession of immovables and of real rights is not deemed lost, or transferred for purposes of
prescription to the prejudice of third persons, except in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law and
the Land Registration laws.
RULE ON IRREIVINDICABILITY:
Article 559: The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from
the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been
unlawfully deprived, has acquired in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without
reimbursing the price paid therefore.
Acquired in good faith here means the possessor is of the belief that the person from whom he received the
thing was its owner and could transfer valid title thereto.
GR: Under this situation, if the (real) owner gets the thing, he must REIMBURSE.
Instances where there could be no recovery even if the owner offers reimbursement:
1. if possessor acquired the thing in good faith by purchase from a merchant store or fairs or in MARKETS, in
accordance with the Code of COMMERCE or special laws (Art 1505 NCC; Art 85 of the Code of
Commerce);
2. if owner is by his own conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell (estoppel; Art 1505
NCC);
3. holders in due course; (Art. 1518, NCC)
4. finders of lost article after a lapse of six (6) months; (Art 719, NCC)
5. acquisitive prescription; [Art 1132, NCC]
“Article 1506: Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his title has not been voided at the time
of the sale, the buyer acquired a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith, for value and
without notice of the seller’s defect or title.”
H: there is unlawful deprivation since there was no valid transfer
Under Art 1506, it is essential that the seller should have a voidable title at least. It is very inapplicable
where, as in this case, the seller had not title at all.
Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation because the same was never delivered to him.
He sought ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of the contract. Marella could have acquired ownership or
title to the subject matter thereof by the delivery or tradition of the car to him. The car in question was never
delivered to the vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of ownership by virtue of the
contract. It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between Santos and Marella, the
latter as the vendee, took possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing the same while it was in the
custody of the former’s son.
For this reason, it is therefore improper to compel Pia to reimburse Teresa in the sum of P3.500 which
Praceses obtained through the commission of an unlawful act, but that it is proper and in accordance with the
law to compel Teresa to return to Pia, absolutely and unconditionally the jewelries in question.
F: Steamer sank – along with money belonging to 3 firms. Rey found the location of the wrecked streamer and
took the money there
H: there is no abandonment in this case
Article 460 of the Civil Code provides how the possessor of property may lose his possession of the
same:
1. By abandonment of the thing.
2. By the transfer to another for a good and valuable consideration.
3. By the destruction of total toss of the thing or by the thing becoming unmarketable,
4. By the possession of another, even against the will of the former possessor, it the new possessor has lasted
more than one year.
Can one be charged with the abandonment of his property without even knowing that the same has passed out
of his possession or has been lost? The answer is no. Manresa, in his Commentaries upon the provisions of the
Civil Code, says: "He who has a right may renounce it. This act by which thing is voluntary renounced
constitutes an abandonment. There is no real intention to abandon a property when, as in the casecof a
shipwreck or a fire, things are thrown into the sea upon the highway." Certainly the owner of the property
cannot be held to have abandoned the same until at least he at least has some knowledge of the loss of its
possession or of the loss of the thing. Property can not be considered abandoned under the law and the
possession left vacant for the finder until the spes recuperandi is gone and the animus revertendi is finally given
up.
The mere fact that cargo is sunk with a ship wrecked at the sea by no means deprives the owner of said cargo
of his property therein. The owner certainly still had the right to reclaim such property and to recover the same
if possible. If it should be recovered by others, the real owner would be entitled to recover its value less the
necessary expense of recovering the same and carrying it shore by the most approved appliances for that
purpose by others.
Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed only while they are under one's control; domesticated or tamed animals
are considered domestic or tame if they retain the habit of returning to the premises of the possessor.
Art. 561. One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for all purposes which
may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption.
USUFRUCT IN GENERAL
Article 562: Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its forms
and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
Characteristics: (mem)
1. Essential (Usufruct cannot exist without these)
a. Real right;
b. Temporary in nature;
c. Purpose is to enjoy the benefits;
2. Natural (Ordinarily present but may be eliminated by agreement)
a. Obligation to conserve and preserve
3. Accidental (may or may not be present depending upon the stipulation of the parties)
Usufruct Easment
Object may be real or personal property Involves only real property
What can be enjoyed are ALL uses and the fruits Limited to a particular use
of the property
It cannot be constituted on an easement but it can May be constituted in favor of, or burdening, a
be constituted on the land burdened by am piece of land held in usufruct
easement
Usually extinguished by the death of the Not extinguished by the death of the owner of the
usufructuary dominant estate
Art. 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those provided in the title constituting the
usufruct; in default of such title, or in case it is deficient, the provisions contained in the 2 following Chapters
shall be observed.
1. He is entitled to all natural, industrial and civil fruits if the property but w/ respect to the hidden treasure, he
is a stranger unless he is the finder he gets ½ (Art. 566)
2. To enjoy all the accessions whether natural or artificial – all benefits inherent in the property
3. To enjoy the thing by himself or thru another – he can:
a. appoint an administrator
b. lease the property to another but NOT longer than the term of the usufruct
c. alienate, sell, donate his usufructuary rights (Art. 572)
4. To make use of things included in the usufruct w/c gradually deteriorate thru wear and tear – abnormal
usufruct (Art. 573)
5. To make use of consumable things given in usufruct – quasi- usufruct (Art. 574)
6. To make use of dead tree trunks- special usufruct (Art. 575)
7. To make useful or luxurious improvements for mere pleasure
FIRST:
The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. With
respect to hidden treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall be considered stranger. (Art
566)
Art. 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct begins, belong to the usufructuary.
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the owner.
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the
owner any expenses incurred; but the owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct,
from the proceeds of the growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar
expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of 3rd persons, acquired either at the beginning or at
the termination of the usufruct.
Art. 568. If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements given in usufruct, and the usufruct should expire
before the termination of the lease, he or his heirs and successors shall receive only the proportionate share of
the rent that must be paid by the lessee.
Art. 569. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the usufructuary in proportion to the time the
usufruct may last.
Art. 570. Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive a rent or periodical pension, whether
Page 53 of 82
1. in money or
2. in fruits, or
3. in the interest on bonds or securities payable to bearer
each payment due shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits of such right.
Whenever it consists in the enjoyment of benefits accruing from a participation in any industrial or
commercial enterprise, the date of the distribution of which is not fixed, such benefits shall have the same
character.
In either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be applied in the manner prescribed in Art. 569.
Rules:
1. Pending natural or industrial fruits;
a. growing at the time the usufruct begins belong to the usufructuary;
i. Here, the usufructuary has no obligation to refund for the expenses but without prejudice to the right
of third persons.
ii. Thus, if the fruits had been placed by a possessor in good faith, the pending crop expenses and
charges shall be pro-rated between said possessor and the usufructuary (Art 545)
b. Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the naked owner (Art 567)
i. Here, the naked owner is obligated to reimburse the expenses incurred for the ordinary cultivation
and seeds and other similar expenses from the proceeds of the fruits.
ii. Hence, the excess of expenses over the proceeds need not be reimbursed.
2. Civil Fruits: (Rents, pensions, benefits, etc.) [Art 570]
a. Stock dividends, cash dividends, and profits of a partnership are civil fruits
b. they shall be deemed to accrue proportionately to the naked owner and usufructuary for the time the
usufruct lasts.
Example: A gave B in usufruct the profits of a certain building for five (5) years. If the usufruct lasts for the
period stipulated, all the profits during the said period will go to B. Suppose however, B died at the end of three
(3) years, and the following were the profits from the building:
Year Profit
1 10,000
2 20,000
3 30,000
4 20,000
5 40,000
Total 120,000
SECOND.
The usufructuary has the right to the enjoyment of
1. accessions (whether artificial or natural),
2. servitudes and easements;
3. all benefits inherent in property (i.e.: the right to hunt and fish therein; the right to construct rain water
receptacles) (Art 571)
THIRD.
The usufructuary, in addition to the usufruct (as a right) may: (Article 572)
1. enjoy the thing itself or thru another;
2. lease the thing to another (for a period not longer than that of the usufruct) even without the naked owner’s
consent:
3. alienate, sell, donate, bequeath, or devise, sell or pledge the usufructuary right (not the thing itself or future
crops, for crops pending at the termination of the usufruct belong to the naked owner.)
FOURTH.
The usufructuary has the right to MAKE USE of things included in usufruct which gradually deteriorate
without being consumed, through wear and tear, in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended.
(Abnormal Usufruct) (Article 573)
Examples:
Clothes, furniture, vehicles, books etc.
FIFTH:
The usufructuary has the right to MAKE USE of consumable things in usufruct (quasi-usufruct) [Art 574]
~ The principle of creditor-debtor relationship applies (bec. the form and substance is not really preserved;
thus, this is really a simple loan)
~ Here, the usufructuary becomes the owner of the things (consumable) in usufruct, such as a sum of money
or a quantity of liquid of grain but he has the obligation
o to pay the current price or
o return the things of the same quantity and quality at the time the usufruct ceases.
SIXTH.
The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs has the right to make use of the dead trunks, and even of
those cut off or uprooted by accident (special usufruct) [Art 575]
Art. 576. If in consequence of a calamity or extraordinary event, the trees or shrubs shall have disappeared in
such considerable number that it would not be possible or it would be too burdensome to replace them, the
usufructuary may leave the dead, fallen or uprooted trunks at the disposal of the owner, and demand that the
latter remove them and clear the land.
Art. 577. The usufructuary of woodland may enjoy all the benefits which it may produce according to its nature.
If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the usufructuary may do such ordinary cutting or
felling as the owner was in the habit of doing, and in default of this, he may do so in accordance with the
custom of the place, as to the manner, amount and season.
In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to prejudice the preservation of
the land.
In nurseries, the usufructuary may make the necessary thinnings in order that the remaining trees may
properly grow.
With the exception of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the usufructuary cannot cut down trees
unless it be to restore or improve some of the things in usufruct, and in such case shall first inform the owner of
the necessity for the work.
Art. 578. The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or a real right, or any movable property, has the
right to bring the action and to oblige the owner thereof to give him the authority for this purpose and to furnish
him whatever proof he may have. If in consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires the thing
claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion remaining with the owner.
SEVENTH:
Page 55 of 82
However:
1. He must not alter the form or substance of the property held in usufruct unless the naked owner consents;
2. He is not entitled to a refund but
a. he may either
i. remove the improvement if no substantial damage to the property is caused (Art 579); or
ii. to set off (compensate) the improvements against damages for which he may be liable (Art 580).
b. His right does not involve an obligation, hence, if the usufructuary does not wish to exercise it, he cannot
be compelled by the naked owner to remove his improvements.
c. The option to remove is granted to the usufructuary.
Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have made on the property against any
damage to the same.
Art. 581. The owner of property the usufruct of which is held by another, may alienate it, but he cannot:
1. alter its form or substance, or
2. do anything thereon which may be prejudicial to the usufructuary.
Art. 582. The usufructuary of a part of a thing held in common shall exercise all the rights pertaining to the
owner thereof with respect to the administration and the collection of fruits or interest.
Should the co-ownership cease by reason of the division of the thing held in common, the usufruct of the
part allotted to the co-owner shall belong to the usufructuary.
If a co-owner of a property gives the usufruct of his share to another: (Art 582)
1. The usufructuary takes the co-owner’s place as to:
a. administration or management;
b. collection of fruits or interest
2. but not as to alienation, disposition, or creation of any real right over the property, since these are strict acts
of ownership, unless authorized by the naked owner
Effect of Partition:
1. The usufructuary continues to have the usufruct of the part allotted to the co-owner concerned.
2. The co-owner may partition the property even without the consent of the usufructuaruy and the partition is
binding upon the usufructuary.
a. However, the naked owner (co-owner) must respect the usufructuary.
Art. 583. The usufructuary, before entering upon the enjoyment of the property, is obliged:
1. To make, after notice to the owner or his legitimate representative, an inventory of all the property, which
shall contain an appraisal of the movables and a description of the condition of the immovables;
2. To give security, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon him in accordance with this
Chapter.
General Rule: The usufructuary BEFORE entering upon the enjoyment of the property is obliged:
1. to make after notice to the owner an inventory of all property which shall contain
a. appraisal of the movables and
b. description of the condition of the immovable:
2. to give SECURITY, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon him.
~ The obligation to make inventory and to give security are not necessary in order for the right to the usufruct
begins but are merely required before physical possession and enjoyment of the property can he had.
Page 56 of 82
Art. 584. The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not apply to:
1. the donor who has reserved the usufruct of the property donated, or
2. to the parents who are usufructuaries of their children's property, except when the parents contract a second
marriage.
Art. 585. The usufructuary, whatever may be the title of the usufruct, may be excused from the obligation of
making an inventory or of giving security, when no one will be injured thereby.
Art. 586. Should the usufructuary fail to give security in the cases in which he is bound to give it, the owner
may demand:
1. that the immovables be placed under administration,
2. that the movables be sold,
3. that the public bonds, instruments of credit payable to order or to bearer be converted into registered
certificates or deposited in a bank or public institution, and
4. that the capital or sums in cash and the proceeds of the sale of the movable property be invested in safe
securities.
The interest on the proceeds of the sale of the movables and that on public securities and bonds, and the
proceeds of the property placed under administration, shall belong to the usufructuary.
Furthermore, the owner may, if he so prefers, until the usufructuary gives security or is excused from so
doing, retain in his possession the property in usufruct as administrator, subject to the obligation to deliver to
the usufructuary the net proceeds thereof, after deducting the sums which may be agreed upon or judicially
allowed him for such administration.
Art. 587. If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by virtue of a promise under oath, the delivery
of the furniture necessary for his use, and that he and his family be allowed to live in a house included in the
usufruct, the court may grant this petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.
The same rule shall be observed with respect to implements, tools and other movable property necessary for
an industry or vocation in which he is engaged.
If the owner does not wish that certain articles be sold because of their artistic worth or because they have a
sentimental value, he may demand their delivery to him upon his giving security for the payment of the legal
interest on their appraised value.
Art. 588. After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he shall have a right to all the proceeds and
benefits from the day on which, in accordance with the title constituting the usufruct, he should have
commenced to receive them. (has retroactive effect)
Art. 589. The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in usufruct as a good father of a family.
Art. 590. A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of usufruct shall answer for any damage which the
things in usufruct may suffer through the fault or negligence of the person who substitutes him.
Page 57 of 82
Art. 591. If the usufruct be constituted on a flock or herd of livestock, the usufructuary shall be obliged to
replace with the young thereof the animals that die each year from natural causes, or are lost due to the rapacity
of beasts of prey.
If the animals on which the usufruct is constituted should all perish, without the fault of the usufructuary, on
account of some contagious disease or any other uncommon event, the usufructuary shall fulfill his obligation
by delivering to the owner the remains which may have been saved from the misfortune.
Should the herd or flock perish in part, also by accident and without the fault of the usufructuary, the usufruct
shall continue on the part saved.
Should the usufruct be on sterile animals, it shall be considered, with respect to its effects, as though
constituted on fungible things.
Art. 592. The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs needed by the thing given in usufruct.
By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing
and are indispensable for its preservation.
Should the usufructuary fail to make them after demand by the owner, the latter may make them at the
expense of the usufructuary
The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs needed by the thing given in usufruct.
These are repairs needed because of an event or an act that endangers the preservation of the thing
(distinguished from deterioration under Article 572).
~ If the naked owner had demanded the repair, and the usufructuary still fails to do so, the owner may make
them personally or through another at the expense of the usufructuary.
Art. 594. If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he shall have a right to demand of the usufructuary
the legal interest on the amount expended for the time that the usufruct lasts.
Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the preservation of the thing,
1. the usufructuary may make them;
2. but he shall have a right to demand of the owner,
3. at the termination of the usufruct,
4. the increase in value which the immovable may have acquired by reason of the repairs.
NOTE – The naked owner pays for the extraordinary repairs because it is his property
Page 58 of 82
Art. 596. The payment of annual charges and taxes and of those considered as a lien on the fruits, shall be at the
expense of the usufructuary for all the time that the usufruct lasts.
Art. 598. If
598 applies if it 1. the usufruct be constituted on the whole of a patrimony, and
involves a
2. at the time of its constitution the owner has debts,
universal usufruct
the provisions of Art. 758 and 759 relating to donations shall be applied, both with respect to
1. the maintenance of the usufruct and
2. the obligation of the usufructuary to pay such debts.
The same rule shall be applied in case the owner is obliged, at the time the usufruct is constituted, to make
periodical payments, even if there should be no known capital.
Art. 599. The usufructuary may claim any matured credits which form a part of the usufruct if he has given or
gives the proper security. If he has been excused from giving security or has been able to give it, or if that given
is not sufficient, he shall need the authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to collect such
credits.
The usufructuary who has given security may use the capital he has collected in any manner he may deem
proper.
The usufructuary who has not given security shall invest the said capital at interest upon agreement with the
owner; in default of such agreement, with judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security sufficient to
preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct.
b. the only exception is that when the usufruct was constituted in fraud of creditors
Art. 599. The usufructuary may claim any matured credits which form a part of the usufruct if he has given or
gives the proper security. If he has been excused from giving security or has been able to give it, or if that given
is not sufficient, he shall need the authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to collect such
credits.
The usufructuary who has given security may use the capital he has collected in any manner he may deem
proper.
The usufructuary who has not given security shall invest the said capital at interest upon agreement with the
owner; in default of such agreement, with judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security sufficient to
preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct.
Art. 600. The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be obliged to pay the debt for the security of
which the mortgage was constituted.
Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to
the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof.
Art. 601. The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of any act of a third person, of which he may
have knowledge, that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership, and he shall be liable should he not do so,
for damages, as if they had been caused through his own fault.
If urgent repairs are needed The usufructuary cannot even make the
extraordinary repairs needed
If an inventory (at the beginning of the usufruct) is The inventory can go on but the naked owner may
made later point out the discrepancies and the omissions in
the inventory
Art. 602. The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with regard to the usufruct shall be borne by the
usufructuary.
EXTINGUISHMENT OF USUFRUCT
1. Annulment
2. Rescission
3. Mutual withdrawal
4. Legal causes ending legal usufruct – as when attainment of the age of majority extinguishes parental
usufruct
NOTE:
1. Usufruct is not extinguished:
a. By abuse of misuse of the usufruct, unless by virtue of the abuse or misuse, the thing has been totally lost
b. By non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition for the reason that the usufruct never came into existence
Art. 604. If the thing given in usufruct should be lost only in part, the right shall continue on the remaining part.
Art. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for more than 50 years.
If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is abandoned, or the corporation
or association is dissolved, the usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof.
Art. 606. A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a 3 rd person attains a certain age, shall subsist
for the number of years specified, even if the 3 rd person should die before the period expires, unless such
usufruct has been expressly granted only in consideration of the existence of such person.
Example
1. A gave B his land in usufruct until C becomes 40 years old. A constituted the usufruct when C was 20.
a. This means that the usufruct should last for 20 years
b. Even if C dies before attaining the age of 40
c. If C dies at the age of 30 – the usufruct in B’s favor generally continues
2. Exception – If B was made the usufructuary only because he had to support C
a. It follows that the usufruct was expressly constituted only in consideration of the existence of C
b. Thus on C’s death, the usufruct ends
Art. 607. If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of which a building forms part, and the latter
should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have a right to make use of the land and
the materials.
The same rule shall be applied if the usufruct is constituted on a building only and the same should be
destroyed. But in such a case, if the owner should wish to construct another building, he shall have a right to
occupy the land and to make use of the materials, being obliged to pay to the usufructuary, during the
continuance of the usufruct, the interest upon the sum equivalent to the value of the land and of the materials.
Rules when the Bldg is destroyed in any manner before the expiration of the Usufruct (607)
If the usufruct is both on bldg If the usufruct is on the bldg
& land alone
Usufruct on the bldg ends Ends
Usufruct on the land Continues
What the usufructuary can still Use of the: Use of the:
enjoy 1. land; and 1. land; and
2. remaining materials of the 2. remaining materials of the bldg
bldg
If the naked owner wants to Usufructuary – because the land Naked Owner – he has the
rebuild, but the usufructuary is still his for the remaining obligation to pay the usufructuary
refuses, whose decision will period the legal interest upon the sum
perevail? equivalent to the value of the land
and materials
Art. 608. If the usufructuary shares with the owner the insurance of the tenement given in usufruct, the
usufructuary shall, in case of loss, continue in the enjoyment of the new building, should one be constructed, or
shall receive the interest on the insurance indemnity if the owner does not wish to rebuild.
Should the usufructuary have refused to contribute to the insurance, the owner insuring the tenement alone,
the owner shall receive the full amount of the insurance indemnity in case of loss, saving always the right
granted to the usufructuary in the preceding article.
What happens to the Insurance Proceeds after the Bld is Destroyed (608)
Usufructuary contributed to the insurance Only the naked owner paid the insurance
premiums 608 premiums 607
Usufruct is on the bldg Usufruct is on both the Usufruct is on the bldg Usufruct is on both the
alone land and the bldg alone land and the bldg
In case the naked owner wants to rebuild – the The usufruct continues
usufruct continues on the new bldg w/ respect to the land &
materials
If the value of the bldg is: The naked owner is
1. less than the insurance indemnity = usufructuary entitled to the whole
Page 61 of 82
Art. 609. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace
it with another thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on
the amount of the indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct.
If the owner chooses the latter alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
Art. 610. A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in usufruct; but if the abuse should cause
considerable injury to the owner, he may demand that the thing be delivered to him, binding himself to pay
annually to the usufructuary the net proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the compensation
which may be allowed him for its administration.
Art. 611. A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its constitution shall not be
extinguished until death of the last survivor.
Art. 612. Upon the termination of the usufruct, the thing in usufruct shall be delivered to the owner, without
prejudice to the right of retention pertaining to the usufructuary or his heirs for taxes and extraordinary expenses
which should be reimbursed.
After the delivery has been made, the security or mortgage shall be cancelled.
EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES
Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate; that which is
subject thereto, the servient estate.
Art. 614. Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom
the encumbered estate does not belong.
Immovable:
The term “immovable“ must be construed in its common and not legal sense. Hence it refers to immovable
by nature, such as lands, roads, and buildings
Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.
Art. 618. Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided between 2 or more persons, the easement is
not modified, and each of them must bear it on the part which corresponds to him.
If it is the dominant estate that is divided between 2 or more persons, each of them may use the easement in its
entirety, without changing the place of its use, or making it more burdensome in any other way.
1. Continuous and apparent easements (meaning they are continuous and apparent at the same time) may be
acquired by:
a. Title
i. Does not necessary mean documents
ii. any kind of juridical act or law sufficient to create the encumbrance
iii. such as: contract, donation, testamentary succession
b. Prescription = 10 years whether in good faith or in bad faith
c. Note: Art 1115 – general rules on prescription are not applicable in cases of prescription provided for by
Special or particular provisions
2. Discontinuous and apparent = only by title,
3. Continuous and apparent = only by title;
4. Discontinuous and non-apparent = only by title.
Continuous and apparent easement may be either positive or negative depending upon whether or not a
"sufferance" or a ''limitation" is to be made.
1. If easement is POSITIVE = the period of prescription is counted from the day of the dominant estate began
to exercise it:
a. Example: A and B are neighbors and they own a party wall. If A makes an opening or window in the
party wall in 1988, B can close it anytime before 1998. Because if by the time the window is still open,
A has already acquired the easement of light and view by prescription of 10 years, counted from the
opening of the window
b. Note: A window on a party wall is something allowed by a co-owner to be done on his own property and
may therefore give rise to a positive easement of sufferance
2. if the easement is NEGATIVE = the period is counted from the date of NOTARIAL PROHIBITION made
upon the servient estate.
3. Example: A and B are neighbors. On the wall of his building, A opened a window beneath the ceiling joist
to admit light in 1978. Even after 10 years (1988), B may still obstruct the light by constructing on his
own lot a building higher than A’s unless A makes a Notarial Prohibition prohibiting B from making the
obstruction.
Why can negative easements be acquired by prescription despite the fact that they are non-apparent?
Because of the notarial prohibition, w/c makes apparent what is really non-apparent
Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be
acquired only by virtue of a title.
Art. 623. The absence of a document or proof showing the origin of an easement which cannot be acquired by
prescription may be cured by a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate or by a final judgment.
2. shall be considered,
3. should either be alienated, as a title
4. in order that the easement may continue actively or passively,
5. unless at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided,
a. the contrary should be provided in the Title of the Conveyance of either of them, or
b. the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed.
This provision shall also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.
Art. 625. Upon the establishment of an easement, all the rights necessary for its use are considered granted.
Art. 626. The owner of the dominant estate cannot use the easement except for the benefit of the immovable
originally contemplated.
Neither can he exercise the easement in any other manner than that previously established.
Art. 627. The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own expense, on the servient state any works
necessary for the use and preservation of the servitude, but without altering it or rendering it more burdensome.
For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate, and shall choose the most convenient time
and manner so as to cause the least inconvenience to the owner of the servient estate.
Art. 628. Should there be several dominant estates, the owners of all of them shall be obliged to
1. contribute to the expenses referred to in Art. 627,
2. in proportion to the benefits which each may derive from the work.
Any one who does not wish to contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the benefit of
the others.
If the owner of the servient estate should make use of the easement in any manner whatsoever, he shall also be
obliged to contribute to the expenses in the proportion stated, saving an agreement to the contrary.
Art. 629. The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.
Nevertheless, if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the manner established for the use of the
easement,
1. the same
a. should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or
b. should prevent him from making any important works, repairs or improvements thereon,
3. it may be changed at his expense,
4. provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and
5. in such a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to those who may have
a right to the use of the easement.
Art. 630. The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of the portion on which the easement is
established, and may use the same in such a manner as not to affect the exercise of the easement.
3. If there are several dominant estates, each must CONTRIBUTE to the necessary repairs and expenses
a. in proportion to the BENEFIT received by each estate
b. and NOT to the value of each estate
Encarnacion v. CA (3/11/1991)
F: Encarnacion wants to widen the path because his jeep could not pass through. Magsino turned down
Encarnacion’s offer saying Encarnacion could instead use a dried up river bed – 80 m away
H: Encarnacion has a right to widen the path
While there is a dried up river bed less than 100 m away from the dominant tenement, such access is grossly
inadequate. Passage is very difficult, if not, impossible. Generally a right of way may be demanded:
1. where there is absolutely no access to a public highway
2. when even if there is one, it is difficult and dangerous to use or is grossly insufficient
3. where a private property has no access to a public road, it has the right of easement over adjacent servient
estates as a matter of law.
Art 651 NCC provides that it is the needs of the dominant property which ultimately determines the width of
passage. Those needs may vary from time to time. Also Art 649 provides that an easement which is of
continuous and permanent nature, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount
of damage caused by the servient estate. Thus, petitioner is entitled to an additional easement of right of way of
25 meters long and by 1 ½ meter wide over the servient estate after payment of proper indemnity.
[1]
MERGER
Thus, if the owner of the servient buys the whole portion affected, the merger is complete and the easement is
extinguished. But if the portion bought is not the portion affected, the easement naturally remains.
Examples:
Temporary Merger: A the dominant owner, sold a retro, his estate to B, the servient owner
~ The easement is NOT extinguished
~ It is only suspended because the merger is only temporary
~ It revives when the property is redeemed
Conditional Merger: The dominant estate was donated to the servient estate but it was stipulated that if the
servient owner marries X, the property reverts to the dominant owner
~ pending the resolutory condition – the merger can be considered temporary
~ when the servient owner marries X, the easement is revived
~ if no marriage takes place as when X dies, the merger is permanent and the easement is thus extinguished
[2]
NON-USER for 10 Years
1. Refers to an easement that has once been used because one cannot discontinue using what has never been
used
2. Non-user means voluntary abstention and not due to fortuitous event, because the basis of this cause is
presumptive renunciation
[3]
By IMPOSSIBILITY OF USE or BAD CONDITION of the tenement
~ The impossibility of using the easement, which arises from the condition of the tenements, only suspends the
servitude, until such lime when it can be used again.
~ Example: The flooding of the servient tenement over which a right of way exists, unless, extinguishment is
caused by the necessary period for non-user.
[4]
BY EXPIRATION of the term or FULFILLMENT of the condition
Example: An easement was agreed upon to last till the owner of the dominant estate becomes a lawyer. When
the condition is fulfilled the easement is extinguished
[5]
WAIVER or RENUNCIATION of the dominant estate
As a general rule, the renunciation must be express, clear and specific (otherwise it may be confused with
none-user). However, it may be tacit for as long as there are acts which clearly reveal it beyond doubt.
[6]
REDEMPTION agreed upon
This is voluntary redemption, existing because of a stipulation. Stipulations may provide conditions under
which the easement would be extinguished
[7]
Page 67 of 82
OTHER causes:
1. Expropriation of the servient estate,
2. Annulment, recession or cancellation of the title that constituted the easement;
3. Abandonment of the servient estate;
4. Resolution of the right of the grantor to create the easement (as when there is redemption of the property
sold a retro because of the exercise of the right of conventional redemption);
Art. 632. The form or manner of using the easement may prescribe as the easement itself, and in the same way.
Art. 633. If the dominant estate belongs to several persons in common, the use of the easement by any one of
them prevents prescription with respect to the others.
LEGAL EASEMENTS
Art 634: Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the interest of private persons.
Legal easements - those imposed by law and which have for their object either
1. public use - governed by special laws (i.e. Law on Waters; Irrigation Law; Water Code)
2. the interest of private persons - governed by the
a. provisions of the Civil Code;
b. agreement between the parties;
c. general or local laws.
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is
entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the
dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied
and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by
others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity
shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts.
Definition
The easement or privilege by which one person or a particular class of persons is allowed to pass over
another’s land, usually through one particular path or line. The term right of way may either refer to the
easement itself or the strip of land over which passage can be done.
Requisites:
1. The property is surrounded by the estates of others,
2. There is no adequate outlet to a public highway.
a. If outlet is through the water, like a river or sea, under Spanish law, the easement cannot be demanded
for there exists an adequate outlet
b. it is believed that in the Philippines, a distinction must be made, depending on danger, convenience and
cost.),
3. There must be payment of proper indemnity, (but later on, the amount may be refunded when the easement
ends, (Art 655));
4. It must be established at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate (This is generally but not necessarily
the shortest distance);
5. The isolation must not be due to the proprietor's own acts (as when he has built enclosing walls (Art 649))
6. Demandable only by the owner or one with a real right like a usufructuary (The lessee should ask the lessor
to demand the easement from adjoining estates.)
Page 68 of 82
Note:
1. The onus or the burden of proof is upon the owner of the dominant estate to show the specific averments in
his complaint the existence of the requisites or preconditions enumerated
2. In Rivera vs. IAC. 169 SCRA 307, it was held that mere convenience for the dominant estate is not a
sufficient basis for the grant of easement of right of way. There must be real and not a fictitious or
artificial necessity for it.
3. In Costabela vs. CA, 193 S 333, it was held that the gauge for the grant is adequacy and not convenience
4. In Encarnacion vs. CA, 195 S 74, it was held that it is the needs of the dominant property which ultimately
determines the width of the passage.
Where there are several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, and the estate may be established on
any of them, the one where the route is shortest and will cause the “least damage” will be where the easement is
established.
NUISANCE
1. Public nuisance = the doing of or the failure to do something that injuriously affects safety, health or morals
of the public, or works some substantial annoyance, inconvenience or injury to the public.
a. It affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons
b. although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal
2. Private nuisance = One which violates only private rights and produces damage to but one or few persons
and cannot be said to be public.
3. Nuisance per se = a nuisance at all times and under all circumstances or conditions.
4. Nuisance per accidens = a nuisance only under certain circumstances or condition.
5. Attractive nuisance = This is any contrivance which is very attractive to children but very dangerous to
them.
~ An attractive nuisance is not illegal. It may be legal or legitimate thing but because of its nature it can
easily injure children. That is why it is called an attractive nuisance. (Example: firearm)
~ If one is an owner of an attractive nuisance, he is required to exercise the highest degree of diligence to
prevent it from being played by children
Article 696: Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that
property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefore in the same manner as the one who created it.
Art 698: Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance whether public or private.
Art 1143, 2nd par: an action to abate a public or private nuisance is not extinguished by prescription
Page 70 of 82
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are
availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be
commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is
the best remedy against a public nuisance.
Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to
himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if
necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or
doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
1. That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
2. That such demand has been rejected;
3. That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local
police; and
4. That the value of the destruction does not exceed P3,000.
What are the requisites for the abatement of nuisance, whether public or private, without judicial
proceedings? (Art 703 and 704)
Ans: The requisites are the following
1. there must be showing that the nuisance is specially injurious to the person seeking the abatement of
nuisance (Article 703),
2. that demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
3. that such demand has been rejected or ignored;
4. that the abatement must be approved by the City Engineer in Manila and other chartered cities, and in the
provinces, by the Provincial Health Officer and executed with the assistance of or attended by a member
of the local police force;
5. that the abatement must be done in such a way that it does not breach public peace, or do unnecessary
injury; and
6. that the value of the thing to be abated does not exceed P3,000
~ Criminal prosecution is not mentioned. However, if a crime has been committed as defined in the Revised
Penal Code, criminal prosecution can proceed.
~ If the nuisance to be abated is more than P3,000, it cannot be abated without judicial proceedings. It can be
abated only through a criminal or civil action in court as the case may be.
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the
thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury.
However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private
person be followed.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
1. If he causes unnecessary injury; or
2. If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real.
Page 71 of 82
When may a private person or a public officer extra judicially abating a nuisance liable for damages?
Ans: Art 707 provides that a private person or public officer extra-judicially abating a nuisance is liable for
damages in these instances:
1. If he causes unnecessary injury: or.
2. If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance
constitute a nuisance. If and when such result becomes a reality, or at least an imminent threat, that will be the
time the petitioners may come to court.
2. Derivative mode (there is merely a transfer of ownership; somebody else was the owner before):
a. Succession;
b. Donation,
c. Prescription; (Art 1106 )
d. Law (Arts. 158. 445, 461, 465, 466, 681,1434,1456 - NCC )
e. tradition (meaning: legal delivery actual/ constructive) as a consequence of certain contracts (i.e.: sale,
barter, assignment, simple loan or mutuum)
Mode
The process of acquiring or transferring ownership
Title
That which is not ordinarily sufficient to convey ownership, but which gives a juridical justification for a
mode, that is, it provides the cause for the acquisition of ownership.
Example:
If A sells to B a specific car for a specific amount, the sale is the title, by virtue of such title, A should now
deliver the property to B. It is the delivery or tradition that makes B the owner, it is the tradition that is the
mode.
OCCUPATION
Page 73 of 82
Art. 713. Things appropriable by nature which are without an owner, such as animals that are the object of
hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandoned movables, are acquired by occupation.
Occupation
The acquisition of ownership by SEIZING corporeal things that have no owner, made with the intention of
acquiring them, and accomplished according to legal rules.
Occupation Possession
can take place only with respect to property without can refer to all kinds of property whether with or
an owner without an owner
in itself when proper confers ownership does not by itself give rise to ownership
Reasons:
1. because a land that is not shown to belong to anyone is presumed to be a public land;
2. occupation as a mode of acquiring ownership refers to movable which are either considered as res nullius
or res derelicta
Art. 720. If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to pay, as a reward to the finder, 1/10 of the
sum or of the price of the thing found.
INTELLECTUAL CREATION:
Intellectual creation
The product of mental labor embodied in writing or some other material form.
Art. 722.
1. The author and the composer, shall have the ownership of their creations even before the publication of
the same. Once their works are published, their rights are governed by the Copyright laws.
2. The painter, sculptor or other artist shall have dominion over the product of his art even before it is
copyrighted.
The scientist or technologist has the ownership of his discovery or invention even before it is patented.
Art 723: Letters and other communications in writing are owned by the person to whom they are addressed and
delivered, but they cannot be published or disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. However,
the court may authorize their publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice so
requires.
Rules
1. The physical or material object is owned by the person to whom it has been sent;
Page 74 of 82
2. The thoughts, ideas and form of expression contained in the letter belong to the sender or author of the
letter
3. The recipient cannot publish or disseminate the letter, unless
(a) the writer or the writer’s heirs consent;
(b) the public good or the interest of justice so requires as when the:
(1) the publication is necessary for the vindication of the character of the person to whom the letter is
addressed,
(2) letter is produced as evidence in court, in the course of the administration of justice, except when the
letter constitutes a privileged communication and cannot be admitted in evidence without the
consent of the writer.
Copyright:
Nature of Copyright:
1. It is the exclusive right secured by law to an author or his assigns to multiply and dispose of copies of an
intellectual or artistic creation
2. It is an incorporeal right to print and publish, and exist independent of the corporeal property out of which
it arises.
Objectives of copyright:
1. to encourage individuals to intellectual labor by assuring them of just rewards.
2. to secure the society of the larger benefit of their products
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in
such work
Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPFRTY CODE OF THE PHlLlPPINES provides: SECTION 175.
Unprotected Subject Matter - Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 172 and 173, no protection shall
extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or
mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the days
and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a
legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for
making audio-visual recordings…“
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating game show. Accordingly by the
very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI’s copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the
opportunity to compare the videotapes of the two shows.
Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game shows in insufficient the
presentation of the master videotape in evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of
probable cause. As aptly observed by respondent Secretary of Justice: A television show includes more than
mere words to describe it because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that
no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general copyright/ format of both dating
game shows.
Effect of expiration:
On the final expiration of the copyright term, the whole work falls into the public domain and becomes free
and unrestricted.
TRADEMARKS
1. “Mark" - any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an
enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods;
a. including holograms, although they are not so visible but still the can be seen
2. "Collective mark" - any visible sign designated as such in the application for registration and capable of
distinguishing the origin or any other common characteristic, including the quality of goods or services of
different enterprises which use the sign under the control of the registered owner of the collective mark;
a.1 company w/ many products
3. "Trade name" - the name or designation identifying or distinguishing an enterprise;
4. Trademark – name or symbol of goods made or manufactured
5. Trade name – name of symbol of a store, business or occupation
6. Service mark – name or symbol of business rendered
SIMILARITY TEST:
To determine whether a trademark has been infringed, the mark as a whole must be considered and not as
dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it [Del
Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,181 SCRA410]
6. The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with a coat of arms and the words "San Miguel
Brewery Philippines" encircling the same. The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with the
name "BEER" in the center, surrounded with the words "Asia Brewery Incorporated Philippines;
7. Finally, there is a substantial price difference between BEER PALE PILSEN (currently at P4.25 per bottle)
and SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (currently at P7.00 per bottle). One who pays only P4.25 for a bottle
of beer cannot expect to receive San Miguel Pale Pilsen from the storekeeper or bartender."
The Supreme Court deviating from the Del Monte ruling, further said : “The ruling may not apply to all
kinds of products. In resolving cases of infringement and unfair competition, the courts should take into
consideration several factors which would affect its conclusion, to wit: the age, training and education of the
usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and
also the conditions under which it is usually purchased.
The Del Monte case involved catsup, a common household item which is bought off the store shelves by
housewives and house help who, if they are illiterate and cannot identify the product by name or brand, would
very likely identify the product by mere recollection of its appearance. Since the competitor, Sunshine Sauce
Mfg. Industries, not only used recycled Del Monte bottles for its catsup (despite the warning embossed on the
bottles “Del Monte Corporation. Not to be refilled”) but also used labels which were a 'colorable imitation’ of
Del Monte's label, we held that there was infringement of Del Monte’s trademark and unfair competition by
Sunshine.
Our ruling in Del Monte would not apply to beer which is not usually picked up from the store shelf but
ordered by brand by the beer drinker himself from the storekeeper or waiter in a pub or restaurant."
Unfair Competition
~ Passing off one’s goods as those made by another contrary to good faith
~ TEST: imitation or similarity such that average customer may be deceived
Lim Hoa vs. Director of Patents (100 Phil. 214) in relation to Etepha vs Director, 16 SCRA 495
The court differentiated food seasoning product, a kitchen article of daily consumption, from commodities
or articles of relatively great value, such as radio and television sets, air-conditioning units, machinery, etc.,
where the prospective buyer generally the head of a family or a businessman, before making the purchase, reads
the pamphlets and all literature available, describing the article he is planning to buy and perhaps even makes
comparisons with similar articles in the market. He is not likely to be deceived by similarity in the trademarks
Page 77 of 82
because he makes a more or less study of the same and may even consult his friends about the relative merit and
performance of the article or machinery, as compared to others also for sale.
DONATIONS
Article 725: Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor
of another who accepts it.
Essential requisites:
1. the reduction in the patrimony of the donor;
2. the increase in the patrimony of the donee;
3. the intent to do an act of liberality.
~ When a person gets a life insurance and names a third person as his beneficiary, and the insurance becomes
payable by the death of the insured, there is a donation in favor of the beneficiary – not in the sum
received by him from the insurer, but in the total amount of premiums that have been paid by the insured.
This is the only amount that leaves the patrimony.
~ If the amount of premiums, however, exceeds the insurance, there is donation only to the extent of the
insurance. This is the only amount that is added to the patrimony of the donee.
Classification of donations:
1. simple - the cause is pure liberality (no strings attached);
2. remuneratory (to reward past services which do not constitute demandable debt)
3. Conditional or Modal when the donation imposes upon the donee an obligaton in favor of the donor himself
or a third person or even the public.
Example #2:
~ a donation to one who saved the donor's life
~ The phrase "they do not constitute a demandable debt" (Article 726) means that the service which was
rendered did not produce an obligation demandable against the donor, or if it had, such obligation has
been renounced in favor of the donor.
~ A agreed to review B for the bar examinations for a fee of P10,000. Later, B passes the bar examination,
and as a gratitude gives A a parcel of land worth P20,000. The remuneratory donation here is only with
respect to the excess of P10,000 because, the services of A constitute a demandable debt, unless, A in the
meantime renounces his fees and in such case, there is donation to the extent of P20,000.
Example #3:
A piece of land is donated to the city in order that it may be converted into a park or public market.
Form to be followed:
~ in simple / remuneratory donations - form of donations
~ onerous donations – contracts
Art. 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall be considered as not
imposed.
~ It is supposed to be simple (no string attached), why is there a need to have a condition, much less,
impossible?
~ If the condition is not void, then the donation is not really simple, for it has a burden imposed upon the
donee.
~ What is voided here is the impossible condition and not the donation itself.
Art. 728. Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the donor partake of the nature of testamentary
provisions, and shall be governed by the rules established in the Title on Succession.
Art. 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect during the lifetime of the donor, though the
property shall not be delivered till after the donor's death, this shall be a donation inter vivos. The fruits of the
property from the time of the acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the donor provides
otherwise.
As to: Donations Inter Vivos Donations Mortis Cause
The time it takes effect During the lifetime of the donor After the death of the donor
Formalities Must follow the formalities of Must follow the formalities of wills or
donations (if ordinary and simple) codicils (holographic or notarial)
Whether it can be No, except for grounds provided by Yes, at anytime for any reason while
Page 78 of 82
Effect of the fulfillment of the suspensive condition beyond the lifetime of the donor.
Art. 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive condition, which may take place beyond
the natural expectation of life of the donor, does not destroy the nature of the act as a donation inter vivos,
unless a contrary intention appears.
Example:
A donates a piece of land to B on the condition that X, A’s son becomes a lawyer. The fulfillment of the
condition even after the death of the donor does not affect the nature of the donation as inter vivos. The
fulfillment retroacts to the time of the donation.
Article 731: When a person donates something, subject to the resolutory condition of the donor’s survival,
there is donation inter-vivos.
Example: A was about to undergo a delicate operation. He donated to B a parcel of land subject to the
condition that if A survives the operation, B’s ownership over the land would terminate, and the same would
revert to A. But if A dies, there is donation inter vivos not mortis causa.
Article 734: The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee:
Article 746: Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and the donee.
Art 735. All persons who may contract and dispose of their property may make a donation.
Art 737: The donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of the making of the donation.
~ The phrase "as of the time of the making of the donation” should really mean "as of the time of the
perfection of the donation.” So that, a physically incapacitated person (i.e. unemancipated minors
or insane) may still donate provided that at the time of his knowledge of the acceptance by the
donee, the incapacity is not present. Although, it is submitted that the donation is voidable
following the law on contracts which are suppletory to simple donation – as in vitiated consent.
~ The capacity of the donee is determined at the time of the perfection of the donation (at the time he
makes known to the donor his acceptance of the donation).
~ Reason: To protect the creditors and the weaker spouse from the dominance of the other.
~ What is moderate is relative. This may be determined based on the financial status of the family.
Capacity of a minor:
For purposes of marriage, a person may contract marriage at the age of 18 years.
May he enter into a marriage settlement wherein he may dispose of his future property in favor of his
prospective spouse without the intervention of the parents?
Page 79 of 82
Ans: Art 78 (in relation to Art. 234 and 236) of the Family Code which requires that the parents are
required to be made parties to the marriage settlements was impliedly repealed by RA 6809 wherein the
marriage settlements may now be entered by the child personally even without the intervention of the
parents.
Read also: Donations by reason of marriage - Arts. 82, 87, Family Code
~ The donation may comprehend all present property, meaning that which the donor can dispose of at the
time of the donation but in all instances, the donor cannot give more than what he can give by will
(meaning, a person cannot give more than what the giver can give by virtue of a will). Otherwise, the
donation is considered inofficious.
~ The sufficiency can be determined by the court in accordance with the prudence and the exercise of
reasonable discretion.
~ Excessive or inofficious donation is not void but merely reducible.
~ Donations cannot comprehend future property (Article 751), because he cannot give what he does not
have, except in case of contractual succession and donations by reason of marriage (Art 84, FC)
FORMALITIES OF A DONATION:
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document,
specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall
not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form,
and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
d. when the purpose of the donation is to initiate, continue, resume or compensate the illicit relations
between the paramours, the donation is void. But if the intention is to indemnify the damage caused
to the other at the time of separation, the donation is valid.
2. Those made between persons found guilty of the same offense, in consideration thereof;
a. If a person agrees to kill another in consideration of a donation to be made in his favor, the donation
is void. Here, since the consideration is illegal, the donation must necessarily be void; there must
be a conviction;
3. Those made to a public officer or his spouse, descendants or ascendants by reason of his office
a. The purpose for the rule is to prevent bribery; the donation is void by reason of public policy
Article 740: Incapacity to succeed by will shall be applicable to donations inter-vivos. (relative incapacity)
~ The incapacity to inherit by reason of unworthiness provided in Article 1032 is not included within the
scope of the above article.
~ A donation made to a person who falls under the provisions of said article would be valid, because a
testamentary provision made in favor of such person after the testator has knowledge of the act of
unworthiness would constitute pardon under Article 1033.
~ On the other hand, if the donation has already been made when the cause of unworthiness occurs, the
donation is not revoked only by the causes mentioned in Articles 760, 764 and 765.
RULES IN CASES OF DOUBLE DONATIONS: (Apply the rule on double sales, Art 1544, NCC)
1. movable property = the ownership shall be transferred to the donee who have first taken possession
thereof in good faith;
2. immovable property = the ownership shall belong to the donee who first recorded it in the registry of
property.
3. if there he be inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the donee who in good faith was the first in the
possession; and in the absence thereof, to the donee who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith.
Art. 763. The action for revocation or reduction on the grounds set forth in Art. 760 shall prescribe after 4
years:
1. from the birth of the first child, or
2. from his legitimation, recognition or adoption, or
Page 81 of 82
ILLUSTRATION:
X has no child. At the time he gave the donation of P10,000, he had P100,000. Therefore, after the
donation, he had P90,000 left. Later, he adopted a minor child. At the same time he made the adoption he
had only P5,000 left. Should the donation be reduced? If so, how much?
Note: The value of the estate is to be considered at the time of the birth, reappearance, or adoption:
Donation 10,000
Property left at the time of adoption 5,000
Total value of estate 15,000
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails to comply with
any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor, the alienations made by the donee and the
mortgages imposed thereon by him being void, with the limitations established, with regard to third persons,
by the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration laws.
This action shall prescribe after 4 years from the noncompliance with the condition, may be:
1. transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and
2. exercised against the donee's heirs.
~ A donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor when the donee fails to comply with any of
the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.
~ Exception: when the condition is immoral, illegal, or impossible.
~ Effect of non-fulfillment:
o the donor has the choice of enforcing the condition by action for specific performance. The donee
having bound himself to carry out the condition imposed by accepting the donation may be
compelled with what has been stipulated.
~ A court action is necessary if the donee refuses to return the property
Art 765: The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of ingratitude in the
following cases:
1. If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor, or the property of the donor or
of his wife or children under his parental authority
2. if the donee impute to the donor any criminal offense, , or any act involving moral turpitude, even
though he should prove it, unless the crime or the act has been committed against the donee himself,
his wife or children under his authority;
3. If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the
donor.
Note #2:
Offense does not mean a criminal offense, it may also include non-criminal offenses.
No criminal conviction is necessary, and proof of the of the offense by mere preponderance of evidence
in a suit for revocation is sufficient;
Notes #3:
a. there is legal or moral ground;
b. the refusal to support must be "made" or "unjustified"
c. it is understood that the support given periodically should not exceed the value of the thing donated.
The moment this amount is reached, the duty to support also ends.
Art. 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be renounced in advance.
This action prescribes within 1 year, to be counted from the time:
Page 82 of 82
Prescriptive period for revocation by reason of ingratitude shall be one (1) year from the time the donor
had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action.
Art. 770. This action shall not be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, if donor did not institute the same,
although he could have done so, and even if he should die before the expiration of 1 year.
Neither can this action be brought against the heir of the donee, unless upon the donee's death the
complaint has been filed.
~ The action for revocation is not transmitted to the heirs of the donor.
o Reason: Because the grounds for revocation are purely personal to the donor.
~ Exceptions:
o when the action was already instituted but the donor subsequently died
o when the donor is killed by the donee:
o the donor died without knowing the act of ingratitude
Inofficious donations:
Art. 771. Donations which in accordance with Art. 752, are inofficious, bearing in mind the estimated net
value of the donor's property at the time of his death, shall be reduced with regard to the excess; but this
reduction shall not prevent the donations from taking effect during the life of the donor, nor shall it bar the
donee from appropriating the fruits.
For the reduction of donations the provisions of this Chapter and of Art. 911 and 912 of this Code shall
govern.