PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
Ownership
 Definition:
 It is the independent right of exclusive enjoyment and
control of a thi ng for the purpose of deriving thereform
all the adv antages requi red by the owner and the
promotion of the general welfare, subject to the
restriction imposed by the law and the rights of others
(cannot us e property in a manner which injures the
rights of others [Art. 431])
 Over rights and thin gs
 Ownership is elastic, general, exclusive,
independent, perpetual
 Bundle of Rights :
 Jus Utendi
 Jus Fruendi
 Jus Abutendi
 Other Specific Rights:
 Right to Excl ude, sel f -help (Art. 429):
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right
to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (n)
 Right to enclos e or fenc e (Art. 430):
Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or
tenements by means of walls, ditches , live or dead hedges, or
by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted
thereon. (388)
 Right to rec eive Just Compensation in Case of
Expropriation (Art. 435) :
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by
competent authority and for public use and al ways upon
payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the
courts shall pr otect and, in a proper case, restore the
owner in his possession. (349a)
 Right to Hidden Treasure (Art 438 -439):
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land,
building, or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discove ry is made on the property of
another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by
chance, one -half thereof shall be all owed 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 i nterest to science of the arts, the State
may acquire them at thei r just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated. (351a)
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any
hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelr y , or other
precious objects, the lawful ownership of whic h does not
appear. (352)
Prepared by Team Bessy  1
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
 Right to Accessi on (Art. 440):
Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by
accession to everythi ng which is produced thereby, or which is
incorporated or attac hed thereto, ei ther naturally or
artificially. (353)
 Cases:
A. Requisites for the recovery of property
1) Serina v. Caballero (Identify property) : Area and
borders were not properl y identified. ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners were able to establish the
identity of the land being claimed by them? HELD: No.
Petitioners failed to expl ain the discrepancy or
present other evidence to prove with certainty the
location and are of the l and they seek to recover . The
court ruled that a person who claims ownership of
real property is duty bound to clearly identify the
land being claimed, in accordance with the tile on
which he anchors his right of ownership. When the
record does not show that the land subject matt er of
the action for recovery of possession has been
exactly determined, such action cannot prosper, as in
the case of peti tioners . In sum, proof of ownership
coupled with identity of the land is the basic rule.
The rule is likewise well -settled that in or der that
an action for recovery of possession may prosper,
it is indispensable that he who brings the action
fully proves not only his ownership but also the
identity of the property claimed, by describing the
location, area and boundaries thereof.
2) Perez v. Mendoza (Rely on strength of ti tle) : Parties
swaped property for school. Possession wi th
defendants and presumption of ownership was not
rebutted. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred
in its decision. HELD: NO. Finding no reversible error,
Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under revi ew
with costs against petiti oners. The claim of priv ate
respondents that they are the owners of the land in
dispute must be upheld on the ground that they were
in actual and conti nuous possession of the l and,
openly, adversely, and i n the concept of owners
thereof since 1927 thereby acquiring ownership of the
land through acquisitive prescription. Possession is
an indicium of ownershi p of the thing possessed and
to the possessor goes the presumpti on that he holds
the t hing under a claim of ownership. Article 433 of the
Civil Code provides that "(A)ctual possession under
claim of ownership raises a disputable presumpti on of
ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of the property." Article 538
of the Civil Code provides that possession as a fact
cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities except i n the cases of c o -possessi on.
Prepared by Team Bessy  2
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
Should a question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall be preferred;
if there are two possess ors, the one longer in
possession; i f the dates of possession are the same,
the one who presents a ti tle; and if all these conditions
are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit
pending determination of its p ossession or ownership
through proper proceedi ngs.
3) Dizon v. CA : Dionesi o Galang Morthgaged property and as
able to redeem i t thought money from his sisters. Eventually,
land was titled under his name and upon his death the same
was divided among his h eirs. Suit was brought by the heirs of
the sisters against Dionesio’s heirs. Held, Heirs of Dionesio
has better right, Hei rs of sisters did not prove link to the sisters ,
Dionesio has titl e over the property . ISSUES: (1) Are the
properties in question owned in common by the
predecessors -in-interest of appell ants and appellees? (2)
Has appellants ' present action for partition prescribed?
RULING: It is a fact that Dionisio Galang's ownership over the
disputed lots (3548 and 3562) had been judicially confirmed in
1919 which is a proceeding in rem and hence binding "on the
whole world." O CT No. 1056 (9010) and OCT No. 1057 (9102)
were, as a consequence, issued in1922. None of Galang's
co-heirs objected to or protested thei r issuance. These titles
became indefeasible and incontrovertible. Then it was only
after sixty -one (61) years that the descendants of Galang's
co-heirs asserted co -ownership claims over the subject lots.
The unnotarized affidavit is not therefore a suffi c ient basis or
support for what is alleged by respondents as a partition among
Dionisio and his now dec eased sisters. It does not, as correc tly
stated by the trial court, amount to any thing insofar as the two
(2) lots involved in this case are conc erned: Th e Court also
agreed with the RTC that in the absence of definite proof
establishing respondents' link/relationship to their alleged
predecessors -in-interest, i.e., the Gal ang sisters , they do not
have any cause of ac tion, and the suit for partiti on must
necessarily fall. They fai led to establish their connection or
relationship with any of these five sisters save for thei r
unfounded averment that they are indeed descendants and
heirs of these deceased individuals.
B. Actions for recovery
1) Sampayang v. CA – Ac ti on for FE – prior possession is
necessary. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the complaint
for forcible entry would prosper; 2. Whether or not the
petitioner had prior physi cal possession; HELD: 1. YES.
In Sarmiento vs. CA, the Court hel d:“[t]o give the court
jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occ upant or
deforciant on the l and, i t is necessary that the complaint
should embody such a statement of facts as brings the
party clearly wi thin the c lass of cases for which the
statutes provide a remedy, as thes e proceedings are
summary in nature. The c omplaint must show enough on
its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to
parol testimony. The j uri sdictional fac ts must appear on
Prepared by Team Bessy  3
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
the face of the complaint. . . .” It is clear it is from the
above tha t for the MCTC to acquire jurisdiction over a
forcible entry case, i t is enough that the complaint avers
the jurisdic tional facts, i .e. that the plaintiff had prior
physical possession and that he was deprived thereof
by the defendant through force, intimi dation, threats,
strategy and stealth. The complaint in this case makes
such an averment. Henc e, the irrelevant circumstance
that the evidence adduc ed during the hearing rendered
improper an acti on for forcible entry is of no moment
and cannot deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the
case. The MCTC continues to have that jurisdiction.
2.YES. To begin with, the Court is at once confronted by
the uncontested findings of the MCTC judge himself
during his ocular inspection of the premises in dispute
that what he saw thereat “confirmed the allegations of
the defendant [now peti tioner Sampayan] that hi s
predecessors -in-interest have introduced
improvements by planti ng caimito trees, coconut trees,
and others on the land in question”, adding that
“[N]othing c a n be s een on the land that plaintiff had
once upon a time been i n possession of the land”, and
categorically stating that “[T]he allegation that Cristita
Quita, the predecessor -i n-interest of the plaintiffs had
been in possession of the said property since 1957,
openly, exclusively, c ontinuously, adversely and in the
concept of an owner is a naked claim, unsupported by
any evidence”.
2) Ganila v CA - action for UD against squatters i n land
1227 whose presence in the land was merely tol erated
by the alleged ow ner. MCTC and SC upheld plai ntiff’s
right to possession .In UD cases, prior possession is not
necessary. It is enough that plaintiff has better ri ght to
possess. The defendant is necessarily in prior lawful
possession of the property but his possession
eventually becomes unlawful upon the termination or
expiration of his right to possess. ISSUE: Whether or
not the ruling of the court constitutes deprivation of
possession? HELD: The court hel d that While
petitioners assert that this case involves only
deprivation of possession, they confuse the remedy of
an action for forcible entry with that of unlawful
detainer. In unlawful detainer, prior physical
possession by the plai nti ff is not necessary. It is enough
that plaintiff has a better right of possession. A c tual,
prior physical possession of a property by a party is
indispensable only in forcible entry cases. In unl awful
detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior
lawful possession of the property but his posses sion
eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or
expiration of his right to possess. Thus, the fact that
petitioners are in posses sion of the lot does not
automatically entitle them to remain i n possession. And
the issue of prior lawful possession by the defendants
does not arise at all i n a suit for unlawful detainer,
simply because prior l awful possession by virtue of
contract or other reasons is given or admitted. Unl ike in
forcible entry where defendants, by force, intimi dation,
Prepared by Team Bessy  4
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
threat, strategy or steal th, deprive the plaintiff or the
prior physical possessor of possession. Here there is no
evidence to show that petitioners entered the lot by any
of these acts. In sum, we find no reversible error much
less any grave abuse of discretion committed by the
Court of Appeals . A pers on who oc cupies the land of
another at the latters tol erance or permission, without
any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an
implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a s ummary acti on for ejectment is the proper
remedy agai nst him.
3) Ross Rica Sales Center v. Sps. Ong . Rosa Rica
bought l and which were previously owned by the Ongs.
Ongs remained in the property even after the sale
because of action to annul sale. Rosa Rica then filed
action for UD when ongs failed to leave the property
despite due demand. MTC ordered Ongs to vacate the
property. CA held that MTC had no jurisdiction since
there was no contract, express or implied between the
parties. SC reversed CA. Unlawful withholding – implies
posession on the part of the defendant wh ich was legal
in the beginnning by t whi ch later expired as a right and
is being withheld by the defendant. Allegation that the
defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the
plaintiff is sufficient. The allegation of the plaintiffs and
defendants on ownershi p does not convert the case to
accion reinvi ndicatoria. An adjudication in an ejectment
proceeding of ownership is merely provisional. ISSUE:
Should the suit be accion reinvindicatoria or unlawful
detainer? HELD: The unl awful detainer suit was proper.
Reinvidicatory action is a claim for ownership, while an
action for unlawful detai ner is a cl aim for actual
physical possession. Regardless of the l anguage used
in all pleadings, Mandaue Prime was only trying to
prove that the Ongs were unlawfully dispossessi ng
them of lands Mandaue Prime had the right of ownership
to and it is seeking recov ery of the physical possession
of the land. Even i f the MTC and RTC made
adjudications of the issue of ownershi p this does not
mean that the complaint has become one of the
reinvindicatory action because such ruli ngs must only
be deemed provisional as against the actual issue of
ejectment or rec overy of possession.
4) Peralta-labrador v. Bugarin – Lilia filed ac tion to
recover possessio n and ownershi p wi th MTC against
bugarin on January 18, 1996 alleging that she is the
owner of land occupied by Bugarin since 1994. MTC
ruled in favor of Bugarin. RTC affi rmed. SC held MTC
has no jurisdiction. Complaint shows that action was
filed 2 years after the forcible entry. After the lapse of
one year, accion publici ana mus be filed. It is an
ordinary civil proceeding to determine better right to
possess realty independently of title. It also refers to an
ejectment sui t filed after the expi ration of one year
fromteh accrual of the c ause of ac tion or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the relaty
independently of title. Property not properly identified.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action to file a forcibl e entry
Prepared by Team Bessy  5
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
case had al ready prescri bed. RULING: It was clear that
Peralta-Labrador’s averment was a case for forcible
entry because she alleged prior physical possession of
the subject lot way back in 1976 and the forcible entry
thereon by Bulgarin. Considering her allegation that the
unlawful possession of respondent occurred 2 years
prior to the fili ng of the c omplaint in 1996, the cause of
action for forcible entry had prescribed and the MTC
had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The complaint
therefore should have been filed with the RTC v ia an
accion publiciana, a sui t for recovery of the right to
possess, or an accion rei nvidicatoria which is an action
recover ownership as well as possession.
5) Hilario v. Salvador - no allegation of ownership but
possession in the concept of co -owner. ISSUES: 1)
Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion
reinvindicatoria; 2) Whether or not the RTC had
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Hilario; HELD:
The action filed by Hil ari o did not involve a claim of
ownershi p over the property. They prayed that Salvador
vacate the property and restore possession to them.
Hence, i t was an acci on publiciana, or one for the
recovery of possession of the real property. It was not
an aaccion reinvindic atoria or a suit for the recovery of
possession over the real property as owner. The nature
of the acti on and which c ourt has original and exclusive
jurisdiction is determined by the material allegations of
the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the
plaintiff and the law in effect when the action i s filed,
irrespective of whether the plainti ffs are enti tled to
some or all of the claims asserted therein. The
complaint did not contai n an allegation stating the
assessed value of the property. Absent any allegation
in the complai nt of the assessed valu e of the property,
it could not thus be determined whether the RTC or the
MTC had origi nal and ex clusive jurisdiction over the
action.The law also expl icitly excluded from the
determination of the j uri sdictional amount the demand
for interest, damages of w hatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses, and costs. Since the RTC had no
jurisdiction over the acti on, all the proc eedings therein,
including the decision of the RTC, were null and void.
 Limitations of real right of Ownership :
a. General Limitations of police power, taxation,
eminent domai n
b. Specific limitations
 By party transmitting property either by contract or
last will or donation
 By the owner himself, voluntary servitude, mortgage,
pledge or lease
 Inherent limitations from conflict of rights arising from
contiguity of property
 By Law
 Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedos (Art
431)
 Act in State of Necessity (Art. 432)
 Art. 2191: Liability for Excessive Smoke,
emanations, etc. :
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be
Prepared by Team Bessy  6
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has
not been taken care of with due diligence, and
the inflammation of explosive substances
which have not been kept in a safe and
adequate place;
(2) By excessive smok e, which may be harmful
to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes , if not caused by force
majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers
or deposi ts of infectious matter, constructed
without precauti ons suitable to the place.
(1908)
 Art. 677-679: Observance of distances in
planting and buildi ng :
Art. 677. No constructions can be built or
plantings made near fortified places or
fortresses wi thout compliance with the
conditions required in special l aws,
ordinances, and regulations relating
thereto. (589)
Art. 678. No person shall build any aqueduct,
well, sewer, furnace, forge, chimney, stable,
depository of corrosive substances,
machinery, or fac tory which by reason of its
nature or products is dan gerous or noxious,
without observing the dis tances prescri bed by
the regulations and customs of the place, and
without making the necessary protective
works, s ubject, in regard to the manner
thereof, to the conditions prescribed by such
regulations. Thes e prohi bitions cannot be
altered or renounced by stipulation on the part
of the adjoining proprietors.
In the absence of regulations, such
precautions shall be tak en as may be
considered necessary, i n order to avoid any
damage to the neighbori ng lands or
tenements.(590a)
Art. 679. No trees s hall be planted near a
tenement or piece of land belonging to another
except at the distance authorized by the
ordinances or customs of the place, and, in the
absence thereof, at a di stance of at least two
meters from th e dividing line of the es tates if
tall trees are planted and at a distance of at
least fifty centimeters if shrubs or small trees
are planted.
Every landowner shall have the right to
demand that trees hereafter pl anted at a
shorter distance from hi s land or tenement be
uprooted.
The provisions of this article also apply to
trees which have grown
spontaneously. (591a)
Prepared by Team Bessy  7
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
 Art. 670: Observance of distances for
making openings in one’s own walls :
Art. 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or
other similar projec tions which afford a direct
view upon or towards an adjoining land or
tenement can be made, without leaving a
distance of two meters between the wall in
which they are made and such contiguous
property.
Neither can side or oblique views upon or
towards such conterminous property be had,
unless there be a distance of sixty
centimeters.
The nonobs ervance of these distances does
not give rise to prescription. (582a)
 Art. 649 & 652 : Grant of Right of Way even
without compensation :
Art. 649. The owne r, or any person who by virtue of a real right
may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by
other immovables pertai ning to other persons and without
adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a
right of way through the neighbo ring 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 o f the land occupied and the amount of the damage
caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way i s limited to the necessary passage for
the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the
gathering of its crops through the servient est ate without a
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of
the damage caused by s uch encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts . (564a)
Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acqui red by sale, exchange
or partition, is surrounded by other estates of the vendor,
exchanger, or co -owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of
way without indemnity .
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by
the donee for the establi shment of the right of way. (567a)
 Art. 637: Duty to receive water naturally
descending from a higher level :
Art. 637. Lower estates are obli ged to receive the
waters which naturally and without the
interventi on of man desc end from the higher
estates, as well as the stones or earth which they
carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct
works which will impede this easement; neither
can the owner of the hi gher estate make works
which will increase the burden. (552)
Prepared by Team Bessy  8
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
 Art. 676: Duty to drain buildi ngs through one’s
own property :
Art. 676. Whenever the y ard or c ourt of a house is surrounded
by other houses, and it is not possible to give an outlet through
the house itself to the rain water collec ted thereon, the
establishment of an eas ement of drainage can be demanded,
giving an outlet to the water at the point of the contiguous lands
or tenements where its egress may be easiest, and establishing
a conduit for the drainage in such manner as to cause the latest
damage to the ser vient estate, after payment of the proper
indemnity. (588)
 Art. 644: Restrictions on the use of party walls :
Art. 644. The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot
be imposed on buildings, courtyards , annexes, or outhouses, or
on orchards or garden s already existing.(559)
 Art. 684-687: Restrictions on excavations :
Art. . 684. No proprietor shall make such
excavations upon his land as to deprive any
adjacent land or buil ding of sufficient lateral or
subjacent support.
Art. 685. Any sti pulation or testamentary
provision allowing excavations that cause
danger to an adjacent land or building shall be
void.
Art. 686. The legal easement of lateral and
subjacent support is not only for buildings
standing at the time the excavations are made
but also for constructions that may be erected.
Art. 687. Any propri etor i ntending to make any
excavation contemplated in the three
preceding articles s hall notify all owners of
adjacent lands.
 Case: Lunod v. Meneses: It appears to have been
clearly proven in this cas e that the lands owned by the
plaintiffs in the aforesai d barri o, as well as the s mall
adjoining lake, named Calalaran, are located in
places relatively higher than the sitio called Paraanan
where the l and and fish pond of the defendant are
situated, and which border on the Tali ptip River; that
during the rai ny season the rain water which fall s on
he land of the plainti ffs, and whic h flows toward the
small Calalaran Lak e at fl ood time, has no outlet to the
Taliptip River other than through the low land of
Paraanan: that the border line between Calalaran and
Paraanan there has exis ted from time immemorial a
dam, constructed by the community for the purpose of
preventing the salt waters from the Taliptip River, at
high tide, from flooding the land i n Calalaran, pas sing
through the lowlands of Paraanan; but when rainfall
was abundant, one of the residents was desi gnated in
his turn by the lieutenant or jus tice of the barrio to
open the sluic e gate i n order to let out the water that
flooded the rice fields, through the land of Paraanan
to the above -mentioned river, that since 1901, the
defendant constructed another dam along the
Prepared by Team Bessy  9
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

boundary of this fishpond in Paraanan, thereby imposed upon his estate. The defendant Meneses
impeding the outl et of the waters that f lood the fields might have c onstruc ted the works necessary to make
of Cal alaran, to the seri ous detriment of the growing and maintain a fish pond within his own land, but he
crops. The lands of Paraanan being the lower are was always under the strict and necessary obligation
subject to the eas ement of receiving and giving to respect the statutory easement of waters charged
passage to the waters proceeding from the higher upon his property, and had no ri ght to close the
lands and the lake of Calalaran; this ea sement was passage and outlet of the waters flowing from the
not constituted by agreement between the interested lands of the plaintiffs and the lake of Calalaran i nto
parties; i t is of a statutory nature, and the law had the Taliptip River. He could not lawful ly injure the
imposed it for the common public utility in view of the owners of the dominant estates by obstructi ng the
differenc e in the alti tude of the lands in the barrio outlet to the Talipti p Riv er of the waters floodi ng the
Bambang. Hence, the owner of the lower lands cannot upper lands belonging to the plaintiffs.
erect works that will impede or prevent such an
easement or charge, constituted and imposed by the
law upon his estate for the benefit of the higher lands
belonging to different owners; neither can the latter
do anything to inc rease or extend the easement.
According to the provisi ons of law above referred to,
the defendant, Meneses , had no right to construct the
works, nor the dam which blocks the passage, through
his lands and the outlet to the Taliptip River, of the
waters which flo od the higher lands of the plaintiffs;
and having done so, to the detriment of the easement
charged on his estate, he has violated the law which
protects and guarantees the respective rights and
regulates the duties of the owners of the fields in
Calalaran and Paraanan. It is true that article 388 of
said code authorizes ev ery owner to enclose his
estate by means of walls , ditches fences or any other
device, but his right is li mited by the easement
Prepared by Team Bessy  10