Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Lands of Public Dominion vs Patrimonial Lands
Government owned lands, as long they are
Land and Building; Real Estate Mortgage
patrimonial property, can be sold to private parties,
While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily
whether Filipino citizens or qualified private
includes, in the absence of stipulation of the
corporations. Thus, the so-called Friar Lands
improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by
acquired by the government under Act No. 1120 are
itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on
patrimonial property which even private
which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still
corporations can acquire by purchase. Likewise,
a real estate mortgage for the building would still be
reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain if sold
considered immovable property even if dealt with
or transferred to a public or municipal corporation
separately and apart from the land. ( Soriano vs. Galit,
for a monetary consideration become patrimonial
411 SCRA 631, G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003)
property in the hands of the public or municipal
corporation. Once converted to patrimonial
Machines; Immovable by Destination
property, the land may be sold by the public or
In the present case, the machines that were the
municipal corporation to private parties, whether
subjects of the Writ of Seizure were placed by
Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations.
petitioners in the factory built on their own land.
(Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, 403 SCRA 1,
Indisputably, they were essential and principal
G.R. No. 133250 May 6, 2003)
elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence,
although each of them was movable or personal
LAUREL VS ABROGAR (2006)
property on its own, all of them have become
Gas and electrical energy should not be equated
immobilized by destination because they are
with business or services provided by business
essential and principal elements in the industry. In
entrepreneurs to the public. Business does not have
that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the
an exact definition. Business is referred as that which
said machines are real, not personal, property
occupies the time, attention and labor of men for the
pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code. (Serg’s
purpose of livelihood or profit. It embraces
Products, Inc. vs. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., 338
everything that which a person can be employed.66
SCRA 499, G.R. No. 137705 August 22, 2000)
Business may also mean employment, occupation or
profession. Business is also defined as a commercial
Effect of Stipulation or Agreement;Immovable
activity for gain benefit or advantage. Business, like
It should be stressed, however, that our holding—that
services in business, although are properties, are not
the machines should be deemed personal property
proper subjects of theft under the Revised Penal
pursuant to the Lease Agreement—is good only
Code because the same cannot be “taken” or
insofar as the contracting parties are concerned.
“occupied.” If it were otherwise, as claimed by the
Hence, while the parties are bound by the
respondents, there would be no juridical difference
Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are
between the taking of the business of a person or
not affected by its stipulation characterizing the
the services provided by him for gain, vis-à-vis, the
subject machinery as personal. In any event, there is
taking of goods, wares or merchandise, or
no showing that any specific third party would be
equipment comprising his business. If it was its
adversely affected. (Serg’s Products, Inc. vs. PCI
intention to include “business” as personal property
Leasing and Finance, Inc., 338 SCRA 499, G.R. No.
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the
137705 August 22, 2000)
Philippine Legislature should have spoken in
language that is clear and definite: that business is
Immovable by Destination
personal property under Article 308 of the Revised
Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that
Penal Code. (Laurel vs. Abrogar, 483 SCRA 243, G.R.
“[d]ocks and structures which, though floating, are
No. 155076 February 27, 2006)
intended by their nature and object to remain at a
fixed place on a river, lake, or coast” are considered
LAUREL VS ABROGAR (2009)
immovable property. Thus, power barges are
Interest in business was not specifically enumerated
categorized as immovable property by destination,
as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the
being in the nature of machinery and other
time the above decision was rendered. Yet, interest
implements intended by the owner for an industry or
in business was declared to be personal property
work which may be carried on in a building or on a
since it is capable of appropriation and not included
piece of land and which tend directly to meet the
in the enumeration of real properties. Article 414 of
needs of said industry or work. (FELS Energy, Inc. vs.
the Civil Code provides that all things which are or
Province of Batangas, 516 SCRA 186, G.R. No. 168557,
may be the object of appropriation are considered
G.R. No. 170628 February 16, 2007)
either real property or personal property. Business is port itself. (Philippine Ports Authority vs. City of
likewise not enumerated as personal property under Iloilo, 406 SCRA 88, G.R. No. 109791 July 14, 2003)
the Civil Code. Just like interest in business,
however, it may be appropriated. Following the Submerged Lands; Reclaimed Lands
ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933 (1922), Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above
business should also be classified as personal them, are part of the State’s inalienable natural
property. Since it is not included in the exclusive resources. Submerged lands are property of public
enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the
therefore personal property. (Laurel vs. Abrogar, 576 commerce of man. This is also true with respect to
SCRA 41, G.R. No. 155076 January 13, 2009) foreshore lands. Any sale of submerged or foreshore
lands is void being contrary to the Constitution.
Telecommunication Services; Business is considered Reclaimed lands are no longer foreshore or
Personal Property submerged lands, and thus may qualify as alienable
The Court ruled that even prior to the passage of the agricultural lands of the public domain provided the
RPC, jurisprudence is settled that “any personal requirements of public land laws are met. (Chavez
property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or vs. Public Estates Authority, 415 SCRA 403, G.R. No.
incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the 133250 November 11, 2003)
object of theft.”[40] This jurisprudence, in turn,
applied the prevailing legal meaning of the term Lands of Public Dominion; Public Use
“personal property” under the old Civil Code as Like in MIAA, the airport lands and buildings of
“anything susceptible of appropriation and not MCIAA are properties of public dominion because
included in the foregoing chapter (not real they are intended for public use. As properties of
property).”[41] PLDT’s telephone service or its public dominion, they indisputably belong to the
business of providing this was appropriable personal State or the Republic of the Philippines, and are
property and was, in fact, the subject of outside the commerce of man. This, unless petitioner
appropriation in an ISR operation, facilitated by leases its real property to a taxable person, the
means of the unlawful use of PLDT’s facilities. specific property leased becomes subject to real
(Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. property tax; in which case, only those portions of
Alvarez, 718 SCRA 54, G.R. No. 179408 March 5, 2014) petitioner’s properties which are leased to taxable
persons like private parties are subject to real
Civil Code vs Special Laws; To govern Property Law property tax by the City of Lapu-Lapu. (Mactan-
MERALCO insists on harmonizing the Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. City
aforementioned provisions of the Civil Code and the of Lapu-Lapu, 757 SCRA 323, G.R. No. 181756 June 15,
Local Government Code. The Court disagrees, 2015)
however, for this would necessarily mean imposing
additional requirements for classifying machinery as Patrimonial Property
real property for real property tax purposes not In the case at bar, a school, a public market, and a
provided for, or even in direct conflict with, the cemetery were built upon the subject property.
provisions of the Local Government Code. As Unlike a public square as that in Nicolas Case or a
between the Civil Code, a general law governing playground as that in the Province of Zamboanga del
property and property relations, and the Local Norte Case, schools, public markets and cemeteries
Government Code, a special law granting local are not for the free and indiscriminate use of
government units the power to impose real property everyone. The determination of the persons allowed
tax, then the latter shall prevail. (Manila Electric to study in such schools, or put up stalls in the public
Company vs. The City Assessor, 765 SCRA 52, G.R. market, or bury their dead in public cemeteries are
No. 166102 August 5, 2015) regulated by the government. As such, the subject
property is, under the Civil Code classification,
Immovable Property; Properties of Public Dominion patrimonial property, and the Municipality may have
In any case, granting that petitioner’s present theory the same registered in its name. ( In the Matter of
is allowed at this stage, we nevertheless find it Reversion/Recall of Reconstituted OCT No. 0-116, et
untenable. Concededly, “ports constructed by the al. vs. Registry of Deeds, Tarlac City, 535 SCRA 476,
State” are properties of the public dominion, as G.R. No. 171304 October 10, 2007)
Article 420 of the Civil Code enumerates these as
properties “intended for public use.” It must be Land Registration; Lands of Public Domains
stressed however that what is being taxed in the There must be an express declaration by the State
present case is petitioner’s warehouse, which, that the public dominion property is no longer
although located within the port, is distinct from the intended for public service or the development of
the national wealth or that the property has been the Executive Department, not in the courts. If,
converted into patrimonial. Without such express however, public land will be classified as neither
declaration, the property, even if classified as agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national
alienable or disposable, remains property of the park, or when public land is no longer intended for
public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus public service or for the development of the national
incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from
when such alienable and disposable lands are the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such
expressly declared by the State to be no longer conversion must be made in the form of a law duly
intended for public service or for the development of enacted by Congress or by a Presidential
the national wealth that the period of acquisitive proclamation in cases where the President is duly
prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall authorized by law to that effect. Thus, until the
be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Executive Department exercises its prerogative to
Presidential Proclamation in cases where the classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the
President is duly authorized by law. (Heirs of Mario President declares that the State no longer intends
Malabanan vs. Republic, 587 SCRA 172, G.R. No. the land to be used for public service or for the
179987 April 29, 2009) development of national wealth, the Regalian
Doctrine is applicable. (Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs.
MALABANAN CASE PRINCIPLES Republic of the Philippines, 704 SCRA 561, G.R. No.
It is clear under the Civil Code that where 179987 September 3, 2013)
lands of the public domain are patrimonial in
character, they are susceptible to acquisitive Properties of Public Dominion vs Patrimonial
prescription. On the other hand, among the public Property
domain lands that are not susceptible to acquisitive Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “property
prescription are timber lands and mineral lands. The of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial
Constitution itself proscribes private ownership of in character shall not be the object of prescription.”
timber or mineral lands. (Heirs of Mario Malabanan Articles 420 and 421 identify what is property of
vs. Republic, 587 SCRA 172, G.R. No. 179987 April 29, public dominion and what is patrimonial property:
2009) Art. 420. The following things are property of public
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as
Regalia), a legal concept first introduced into the roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
country from the West by Spain through the Laws of constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads,
the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, all lands of the and others of similar character; (2) Those which
public domain belong to the State. This means that belong to the State, without being for public use,
the State is the source of any asserted right to and are intended for some public service or for the
ownership of land, and is charged with the development of the national wealth. Art. 421. All
conservation of such patrimony. All lands not other property of the State, which is not of the
appearing to be clearly under private ownership are character stated in the preceding article, is
presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands patrimonial property. (Dream Village Neighborhood
remain part of the inalienable land of the public Association, Inc. vs. Dases Conversion Development
domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified Authority, 702 SCRA 222, G.R. No. 192896 July 24,
or alienated them to private persons. (Heirs of Mario 2013)
Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 704 SCRA
561, G.R. No. 179987 September 3, 2013) Torrens Title; Land Registration Laws
Alienable and disposable lands of the State It is a settled rule that lands under a Torrens title
fall into two categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse
of the State, or those classified as lands of private possession. Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529, the Property
ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code, Registration Decree, expressly provides that no title
without limitation; and (b) lands of the public to registered land in derogation of the title of the
domain, or the public lands as provided by the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands adverse possession. And, although the registered
must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands landowner may still lose his right to recover the
classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national possession of his registered property by reason of
parks are not susceptible of alienation or disposition laches, nowhere has Dream Village alleged or proved
unless they are reclassified as agricultural. A positive laches, which has been defined as such neglect or
act of the Government is necessary to enable such omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with
reclassification, and the exclusive prerogative to lapse of time and other circumstances causing
classify public lands under existing laws is vested in prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar
in equity. Put any way, it is a delay in the assertion of true owner must resort to judicial process for the
a right which works disadvantage to another recovery of the property. Under the aforequoted
because of the inequity founded on some change in provision, one who claims to be the owner of a
the condition or relations of the property or parties. property possessed by another must bring the
It is based on public policy which, for the peace of appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery.
society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale The term “judicial process” could mean no less than
demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. an ejectment suit or reivindicatory action, in which
(Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. the ownership claims of the contending parties may
Dases Conversion Development Authority, 702 SCRA be properly heard and adjudicated. In the present
222, G.R. No. 192896 July 24, 2013) case, petitioner had already complied with this
procedure by filing Civil Case No. 21957. The ex parte
Public Lands; Adverse Possession petition for issuance of a possessory writ filed by
Since property of public dominion is outside the petitioner’s predecessor, TRB, in LRC CAD. REC. NOS.
commerce of man and not susceptible to private 1 and 9616, strictly speaking, is not the kind of
appropriation and acquisitive prescription, the “judicial process” contemplated above. Even if the
adverse possession which may be the basis of a same may be considered a judicial proceeding for
grant of title in the confirmation of an imperfect title the enforcement of one’s right of possession as
refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, it is not an ordinary
public domain. It is only after the Government has suit filed in court, by which one party “sues another
declared the land to be alienable and disposable for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
agricultural land that the year of entry, cultivation prevention or redress of a wrong.” ( Dayot vs. Shell
and exclusive and adverse possession can be Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc., 525 SCRA 535, G.R.
counted for purposes of an imperfect title. ( Celestial No. 156542 June 26, 2007)
vs. Cachopero, 413 SCRA 469, G.R. No. 142595
October 15, 2003) Accion Reinvindicatoria
Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to
Public Lands successfully maintain an action to recover the
Properties of public dominion, being for public use, ownership of a real property, the person who claims
are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first,
through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, the identity of the land claimed, and; second, his title
levy on execution or auction sale of any property of thereto. In regard to the first requisite, in an accion
public dominion is void for being contrary to public reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a
policy. Otherwise, essential public services would better right to the property must first fix the identity
stop if properties of public dominion would be of the land he is claiming by describing the location,
subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction area and boundaries thereof. VSD Realty &
sale. Since it is GEMASCO which is liable for the Development Corporation vs. Uniwide Sales, Inc.,
payment of the separation pay and backwages to its 684 SCRA 470, G.R. No. 170677 October 24, 2012
illegally dismissed employees, any contemplated
sale must be confined only to those properties
Accion Reinvindicatoria (MR of VS Realty Case)
absolutely owned by it and the subject water tanks
The established legal principle in actions for
must corollarily be excluded from the same. ( General
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a party
Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc.
seeking it should establish not merely by a
(GEMASCO) vs. National Housing Authority (NHA),
preponderance of evidence but by clear and
750 SCRA 156, G.R. No. 175417, G.R. No. 198923
convincing evidence that the land sought to be
February 9, 2015)
reconveyed is his. Article 434 of the Civil Code
--------------------------------------------------------
provides that to successfully maintain an action to
recover the ownership of a real property, the person
who claims a better right to it must prove two (2)
OWNERSHIP things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and;
second, his title thereto. In an action to recover, the
Disputable Presumption of Ownership property must be identified, and the plaintiff must
The Court finds that under applicable laws and rely on the strength of his title and not on the
jurisprudence, respondent cannot be ejected from weakness of the defendant’s claim.
the property by means of an ex parte writ of SD Realty & Development Corporation vs. Uniwide
possession. Article 433 of the Civil Code states: Art. Sales, Inc,, 702 SCRA 597, G.R. No. 170677 July 31,
433. Actual possession under claim of ownership 2013
raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The
Susana De Guzman Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, 420 encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently
SCRA 219, G.R. No. 125758 January 20, 2004) valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
Quieting of Title prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
Article 476 of the Civil Code provides that an action remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action
to quiet title may be brought when there exists a may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being
cloud on the title to real property or any interest cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein. In the early case of Bautista v. Exconde, we therein. (Heirs of Enrique Diaz vs. Virata, 498 SCRA
held that a property owner whose property rights 141, G.R. No. 162037 August 7, 2006)
were being disturbed may ask a competent court for
a proper determination of the respective rights of Land Titles; Land Registration Laws; Certificate of
the party-claimants, not only to place things in their Title
proper place, that is, to require the one who has no It is well-settled that even if the procurement of a
right to refrain from acts injurious to the peaceful certificate of title was tainted with fraud and
enjoyment of the property not only of the rightful misrepresentation, such defective title may be the
owner but also for the benefit of both with the view source of a completely legal and valid title in the
of dissipating any cloud of doubt over the property. hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Where
(Gapacan vs. Omipet, 387 SCRA 383, G.R. No. 148943 innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of
August 15, 2002) the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over
the property, the court cannot disregard such rights
Quieting of Title and order the total cancellation of the certificate.
As a general rule, a cloud which may be removed by The effect of such an outright cancellation would be
suit to quiet title is not created by mere verbal or to impair public confidence in the certificate of title,
parol assertion of ownership of or an interest in for everyone dealing with property registered under
property. This rule is subject to qualification, where the Torrens system would have to inquire in every
there is a written or factual basis for the asserted instance whether the title has been regularly or
right. Thus, a claim of right based on acquisitive irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident
prescription or adverse possession has been held to purpose of the law. ( Heirs of Victorino Sarili, The vs.
constitute a removable cloud on title. ( Tandog vs. Lagrosa, 713 SCRA 726, G.R. No. 193517 January 15,
Macapagal, 532 SCRA 550, G.R. No. 144208 2014)
September 11, 2007)
Mirror Doctrine; Land Titles
Quieting of Title; Requisites The general rule is that every person dealing with
Under Articles 476 and 477 of the New Civil Code, registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
there are two indispensable requisites in order that the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will
an action to quiet title could prosper: (1) that the in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable determine the condition of the property. ( Heirs of
title to or interest in the real property subject of the Victorino Sarili, The vs. Lagrosa, 713 SCRA 726, G.R.
action; and (2) that the deed, claim, encumbrance or No. 193517 January 15, 2014)
proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title --------------------------------------------------------
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal CO-OWNERSHIP
efficacy. (Clado-Reyes vs. Limpe, 557 SCRA 400 ,
G.R. No. 163876 July 9, 2008) Co-ownership; Concept
The juridical concept of co-ownership is unity of the
Quieting of Title; Concept object or property and plurality of subjects; Each co-
An action for quieting of title is a remedy which may owner, jointly with the other co-owners, is the owner
be availed of only when by reason of any instrument, of the whole property, but at the same time of the
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, which undivided aliquot part. (Gapacan vs. Omipet, 387
appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective, SCRA 383, G.R. No. 148943 August 15, 2002)
voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby cast on
the complainant’s title to real property or any Co-ownership; Concept and Requisites
interest therein. Article 476 of the Civil Code It is a fundamental principle that a co-owner cannot
provides: Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on acquire by prescription the share of the other co-
title to real property or any interest therein, by owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-
reason of any instrument, record, claim, ownership. In order that the title may prescribe in
favor of a co-owner, the following requisites must Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this
concur: (1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal character except in the case and from the moment
acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the facts exist which show that the possessor is not
other co-owners; (2) such positive acts of unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or
repudiation have been made known to the other co- wrongfully. The good faith ceases or is legally
owners; and (3) the evidence thereof is clear and interrupted from the moment defects in the title are
convincing. (Robles vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA made known to the possessor, by extraneous
97, G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000) evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by
-------------------------------------------------------- the true owner. Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 144,
G.R. No. 157044 October 5, 2005
POSSESSION
Possessors in Good Faith
Dionisio was then well aware that this temporary
arrangement may be terminated at any time.
Respondents cannot now refuse to vacate the
property or eventually demand reimbursement of
necessary and useful expenses under Articles 448
and 546 of the New Civil Code, because the
provisions apply only to a possessor in good faith,
i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is
the owner thereof. Persons who occupy land by
virtue of tolerance of the owners are not possessors
in good faith. Thus, the directive of the RTC for
respondents to demolish their residential house on
Lot No. 5053-H was also proper. ( Heirs of Cipriano
Trazona vs. Heirs of Dionisio Cañada, 712 SCRA 300,
G.R. No. 175874 December 11, 2013)