1

!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"

!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
!"#$ &'()$ *+',- .",(# /$)012"('3143,(5'6$
4"7"3 8"9:')) 7; !"#('))3
!"#"$% '( )*+,
-./01/2( 34
A lessee placeu machineiy in a builuing eiecteu on lanu belonging to
anothei, with the unueistanuing that the machineiy was not incluueu in
the impiovements which woulu pass on the lessoi on the expiiation of
the lease.
Lessee also tieateu the machineiy as peisonal piopeity by executing
chattel moitgages in favoi of S
iu
peisons
The machineiy unit must be classifieu as a peisonal piopeity.
Nachineiy which is movable in its natuie becomes immobilizeu when
placeu in a plant <= (>$ 396$5 3? (>$ @53@$5(= 35 @)"6(A <+( 63( 9>$6
@)",$0 <= " ($6"6(A " +#+?5+,(+"5=A 35 "6= @$5#36 >"7'6B 36)= "
($:@35"5= 5'B>(A +6)$## #+,> @$5#36 ",($0 "# "6 "B$6( 3? (>$ 396$5;
C$5-$6-3(($5 7; !+ D6E'$6B $ /'E3#
3"/5 +)( )*+,
67//.89:./( 34
Nabalacat Sugai Co. obtaineu fiom B a loan secuieu by a 1
st
moitgage on
2 parcels of land with all its buildings, improvements, mill, steel
ieailway, telephone line, appaiatus, utensils anu whatevei foims pait oi
is a necessary complement of said [] 35 (>"( :"= '6 (>$ ?+(+5$ $F'#(
'6 #"'0 )3(#;
Aftei some months, NSC bought auuitional machineiy anu equipment to
inciease its capacity.
Petitioner advanced the amount for the addtl equipment, with promise
to be ieimbuiseu.
The installation of a machineiy anu equipment in a moitgageu sugai
cential constitutes a peimanent impiovement, which subjects saiu
machineiy anu equipment to the moitgage constituteu theieon.

G3@$H 7; I53#"A J5; "60 K)"H" &>$"(5$A L6,;
;:<=".=5 >?( )*,?
;:/7@( 34
0iosa pioposeu to Lopez to invest in a theatie business, which woulu be
eiected on Os land. Lopez refused, but agreed to supply the lumber
necessaiy foi the constiuction. Payment, as agieeu, woulu be upon
uemanu anu not C0B. Lopez was paiu only a poition of the amount.
As Lopez was uemanuing payment, 0 obtaineu a bank loan by
moitgaging the theatie to pay foi the balance uue L. Bowevei, the
theatei was alieauy moitgageu to PNB
Appellants contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of
the mateiials useu foi the constiuction, iepaii oi iefection of a builuing
is also extenueu to lanu on which it was constiucteu '# 9'(>3+( :$5'(A
because while it is tiue geneially that ieal estate connotes the lanu anu
the builuing constiucteu theieon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the
builuing, sepaiate anu uistinct fiom the lanu, in the enumeiation of what
constitutes ieal piopeity, coulu mean only one thing: (>"( " <+')0'6B '#
<= '(#$)? "6 '::37"<)$ @53@$5(=
M##3,'"($0 L6#; N 8+5$(= !3; 7; L="
-.5 +A( )*,?
;:/7@( 34
Sps. valino owneu anu possesseu a house of stiong mateiials In uiace
Paik Subu, Caloocan, which they puichaseu on installment fiom PRC.
Wife puichaseu iice with AISC as suiety, anu as countei-guaianty,
executeu a chattel moitgage on theii house. At that time, the lanu was
still in PRCs name.
Aftei completion of payment of purchase price, TCT in Valinos name
was secuieu. Then, to secuie an inuebteuness, executeu a REN ovei the
lot anu house in favoi of Iya.
A builuing is an immovable piopeity iiiespective of whethei oi not saiu
stiuctuie anu the lanu on which it is auheieu to belong to the same
ownei. It cannot be uivesteu of its chaiactei of a iealty by the fact that
the lanu on which it was constiucteu belongs to anothei.
As peisonal piopeities coulu only be the subject of a chattel moitgage,
the execution of a CN on a builuing is invaliu anu a nullity, the
iegistiation of the chattel notwithstanuing.
&+:")"0 7; O',$6,'3 vicencio anu Simeon executeu a chattel moitgage in favoi of the
Tumalaus ovei theii house of stiong mateiials locateu at SSu Int. S,
Quezon Boulevaiu, Quiapo, Nanila, ovei Lot 6-B anu 7-B, Block 2SS4,
which weie being ienteu fiom Nauiigal & Company, Inc.
When vicencio anu Simeon uefaulteu in paying, the moitgage was
extiajuuicially foiecloseu, anu on 27 Naich 19S6, the house was solu at
public auction puisuant to the saiu contiact. As highest biuuei, the
Tumalaus weie issueu the coiiesponuing ceitificate of sale.
0n 18 Apiil 19S6, the Tumalaus commenceu Civil Case 4Su7S in the
municipal couit of Nanila, piaying, among othei things, that the house
Ceitain ueviations fiom the iule in Lopez anu Iya, howevei, have been
alloweu foi vaiious ieasons.
Bence, if a house belonging to a peison stanus on a ienteu lanu
belonging to anothei peison, it may be moitgageu as a peisonal
piopeity as so stipulateu in the uocument of moitgage. It shoulu be
noteu, howevei that the piinciple is pieuicateu on statements by the
ownei ueclaiing his house to be a chattel, a conuuct that may
conceivably estop him fiom subsequently claiming otheiwise.

0nlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. 0iosa, }i. anu Plaza Theatieanu Leung
Yee vs. F. L. Stiong Nachineiy anu Williamson, wheiein thiiu peisons
assaileu the valiuity of the chattel moitgage, it is the uefenuants-
appellants themselves, as uebtois-moitgagois, who aie attacking the
2
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
be vacateu anu its possession suiienueieu to them, anu foi vicencio anu
Simeon to pay ient of P2uu.uu monthly fiom 27 Naich 19S6 up to the
time the possession is suiienueieu. NC iuleu in favoi of Tumalau
Neaily a yeai aftei the foieclosuie sale the moitgageu house hau been
uemolisheu on 14 anu 1S }anuaiy 19S7 by viitue of a uecision obtaineu
by the lessoi of the lanu on which the house stoou.
valiuity of the chattel moitgage in this case. The uoctiine of estoppel
theiefoie applies to the heiein uefenuants-appellants, having tieateu the
subject house as peisonalty.
P"-"(' G$"#'6B "60 .'6"6,$ !35@ 7; Q$"5$7$5 &$F(')$ P'))#A L6,;
-.5 )B( )*?+
C: D.$%=1( 34
To be able to secuie financial accommouations fiom the petitionei,
the piivate iesponuent uiscounteu anu assigneu seveial ieceivables
unuei a Receivable Puichase Agieement. &3 #$,+5$ (>$
,3))$,('36 3? (>$ 5$,$'7"<)$#A " ,>"(($) :35(B"B$ 9"# $F$,+($0
37$5 :",>'6$5= ?3+60 '6 (>$ ?",(35= 3? (>$ @5'7"($ 5$#@360$6(.

As the piivate iesponuent faileu to pay, the moitgage was
extiajuuicially foiecloseu. Nonetheless, the sheiiff was unable to
seize the machineiy. This piompteu petitionei to file an action foi
ieplevin.
The CA ieveiseu the uecision of the tiial couit anu oiueieu the ietuin
of the uiive motoi, aftei iuling that the machineiy may not be the
subject of a chattel moitgage, given that it was an immovable unuei the
piovisions of Aiticle 41S. The same was attacheu to the giounu by
means of bolts anu the only way to iemove it fiom the plant woulu be to
uiill the giounu.
Theie is no logical justification to excluue the iule out that the
machineiy may be consiueieu as peisonal piopeity, anu subject to
a chattel moitgage. If a house may be consiueieu as peisonal piopeity
foi puiposes of executing a chattel moitgage, what moie a machineiy,
which is movable by natuie anu
becomes immobilizeu only by uestination oi puipose, may not be
likewise tieateu as such.

Tumalau uoctiine applies.
C3"50 3? M##$##:$6( M@@$")# 7; P"6')" R)$,(5', !3;
3.E".=5 +)( )*BF4
G.=:H:$( 34
The Philippine Commission enacteu Act No. 484 which authoiizeu the
Nunicipal Boaiu of Nanila to giant a fianchise to constiuct, maintain
anu opeiate an electiic stieet iailway anu electiic light, heat anu powei
system in the City of Nanila.

Neialco's electiic powei is geneiateu by its hyuio-electiic plant locateu
at Botocan Falls, Laguna anu is tiansmitteu to the City of Nanila by
means of electiic tiansmission wiies, iunning fiom the piovince of
Laguna to the saiu City.

These electiic tiansmission wiies which caiiy high voltage cuiient, aie
fasteneu to
insulatois attacheu on steel toweis constiucteu by iesponuent at
inteivals, fiom its hyuioelectiic
plant in the piovince of Laguna to the
City of Nanila. The iesponuent Neialco has constiucteu 4u of these steel
toweis within Quezon City, on lanu belonging to it.

The City Assessoi of Quezon City ueclaieu the afoiesaiu steel toweis foi
ieal piopeity tax unuei Tax.
The SC iuleu that Neialco's steel toweis weie consiueieu poles within
the meaning of paiagiaph 9 of its fianchise which exempts its poles fiom
taxation. The steel toweis weie consiueieu peisonality because they
weie iemovable anu meiely attacheu to squaie metal fiames by means
of bolts anu coulu be moveu fiom place to place when unscieweu anu
uismantleu. Fuitheimoie, they aie not attacheu to an immovable in a
fixeu mannei, anu they can be sepaiateu without bieaking the mateiial
oi causing ueteiioiation upon the object to which they aie attacheu.
S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
P$5"),3 8$,+5'('$# L60+#(5'") !35@35"('36 7; !CMM
-.5 +)( )*?>4
!I"7E1( 34
Puisuant to a pipeline concession issueu unuei the Petioleum Act of
1949, Republic Act No. S87, Neialco Secuiities installeu fiom Batangas
to Nanila a pipeline system consisting of cylinuiical steel pipes joineu
togethei anu buiieu not less than one metei below the suiface along the
shouluei of the public highway.
The pipes aie embeuueu in the soil while the valves aie welueu to the
pipes so as to make the pipeline system one single piece of piopeity
fiom enu to enu.
Puisuant to the Assessment Law,
Commonwealth Act No. 47u, the piovincial assessoi of Laguna tieateu
the pipeline as ieal piopeity anu issueu Tax Beclaiations.
The Couit oiueieu that CBAA uiu not with giave abuse anu uiscietion
anu acteu within its juiisuiction in sustaining the holuing of the
piovincial assessoi that Neialco Secuiities Pipeline System in Laguna is
subject to a iealty tax foi the following ieasons that the pipes aie
machineiy oi impiovements anu iegaiueu as iealty because they aie
constiuctions auheieu to the soil. It is attacheu to the lanu in such a way
that it cannot be sepaiateu theiefiom
without uismantling the steel pipes which aie welueu to the pipeline. In
so fai as the pipeline
uses valves, pumps anu contiol uevices to maintain the flow of the oil, it
is in a sense a machineiy within the meaning of the Real Piopeity Tax
Coue.
P$5"),3 7; !CMM
-.5 +)( )*?>
!I"7E1( 34
This case is about the imposition of the iealty tax on two oil stoiage
tanks installeu in 1969 by
Nanila Electiic Company on a lot in San Pascual, Batangas which it
leaseu in 1968 fiom
Caltex (Phil.), Inc.
The stoiage tanks aie maue of steel plates welueu anu assembleu on the
spot. Theii
bottoms iest on a founuation consisting of compacteu eaith as the
outeimost layei. The tank is not attacheu to its founuation. It is not
anchoieu oi welueu to the conciete ciiculai wall. Its bottom plate is not
attacheu to any pait
of the founuation by bolts, sciews oi similai uevices. The tank meiely
sits on its founuation.
Pipelines weie installeu on the siues of each tank anu aie connecteu to
the pipelines of the
Nanila Enteipiises Inuustiial Coipoiation.
The Boaiu concluues that while the tanks iest oi sit on theii founuation,
the founuation itself anu the walls, uikes anu steps, which aie integial
paits of the tanks, aie affixeu to the lanu while the pipelines aie attacheu
to the tanks anu iequiieu Neialco to pay iealty taxes on the two tanks.
The SC iuleu that while the two stoiage tanks aie not embeuueu in the
lanu, they may, neveitheless, be consiueieu as impiovements on the
lanu, enhancing its utility anu ienueiing it useful to the oil inuustiy. It is
unueniable that the two tanks have been installeu with some uegiee of
peimanence as ieceptacles foi the
consiueiable quantities of oil neeueu by Neialco foi its opeiations.

Thus, the two tanks shoulu be helu subject to iealty tax because they
weie consiueieu ieal piopeity.
!")($F SK>');TA L6,; 7; !CMM
-.5 +)( )*?>
!I"7E1( 34
This case is about the iealty tax on machineiy anu equipment installeu
by Caltex (Philippines) Inc. in its gas stations locateu on leaseu lanu.
The machines anu equipment consists of unueigiounu tanks, elevateu
tank, elevateu watei tanks, watei tanks, gasoline pumps,
computing pumps, watei pumps, cai washei, cai hoists, tiuck hoists, aii
compiessois anu tiieflatois.
The builuing oi sheu, the elevateu watei tank, the cai hoist unuei a
sepaiate sheu, the aii compiessoi, the unueigiounu gasoline tank,
neon lights signboaiu, conciete fence anu pavement anu the lot wheie
they aie all placeu oi eiecteu, all of them useu in the puisuance of the
gasoline seivice station business foimeu
the entiie gasoline seivice-station.
The lessoi of the lanu, wheie the gas station is locateu, uoes not become
The Assessment Law pioviues that the iealty tax is uue "on ieal
piopeity, incluuing lanu, builuings, machineiy, anu othei
impiovements".
SC holu that the saiu equipment anu
machineiy, as appuitenances to the gas station builuing oi sheu owneu
by Caltex (as to which it is subject to iealty tax) anu which fixtuies aie
necessaiy to the opeiation of the gas station, foi without them the gas
station woulu be useless, anu which have been attacheu oi affixeu
peimanently to the gas station site oi
embeuueu theiein, aie taxable impiovements anu machineiy within the
meaning of the Assessment Law anu the Real Piopeity Tax Coue.
4
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
the ownei of the machines anu equipment installeu theiein.
Caltex ietains the owneiship theieof uuiing the teim of the lease.
C$6B+$( !35@; 7; !CMM
3.E".=5 >*( )**+
D="J( 34
Benguet Piovincial Assessoi: Assesseu ieal piopeity tax on the
bunkhouses of petitionei Benguet Coipoiation occupieu foi iesiuential
puiposes by its iank anu file employees unuei Tax Beclaiation Nos.
8471 (198S) anu 1u4S4 (1986). The tax exemptions of bunkhouses
unuei Sec. S of PB 74S was withuiawn by PB 19SS.
Benguet Coip.: Appealeu the uecision to the LBAA of Benguet.
CBAA: helu that the blugs of petitionei useu as uwellings weie exempt
fiom ieal piopeity tax puisuant to PB 74S.
LBAA: affiimeu taxability of the bunkhouses. 0n appeal, CBAA helu the
exemption was withuiawn so petitionei shoulu have applieu foi
iestoiation of the exemption with the Fiscal Incentives Review Boaiu.
Benguet: LGUs dont have any authority to levy realty taxes on mines
puisuant to Sec. S2 of PB 46S anu Sec. S (m) of the Local Tax Coue.
Sol uen: Benguet is estoppeu fiom iaising the question of lack of
authoiity as it was nevei iaiseu befoie.
(1) The provisions of Sec. 52 of the Mineral Resources Devt Decree of
1974 (PB 46S) anu Sec. S (m) of the Local Tax Coue aie meie limitations
on the taxing powei of Lu0s; they aie not peitinent to the issue befoie
the SC. They cannot affect the imposition of the ieal piopeity tax by the
national goveinment.
Although Lu0s aie chaigeu with fixing the iates of ieal piopeity tax, it
uoes not follow that they also have the authoiity to ueteimine W0N they
can impose the tax.
It is the national goveinment that levies ieal piopeity tax. When Lu0s
aie iequiieu to fix the iates, they aie meiely constituteu as agents of the
national goveinment in the enfoicement of the ieal piopeity tax coue.
The uelegation of taxing powei is not even involveu since the tax has
alieauy been imposeu anu the Lu0s aie just manuateu to enfoice it.
If the SC weie to sanction the inteipietation of Benguet, then necessaiily
all ieal piopeities exempt by any law woulu be coveieu, anu
theie woulu be no need for congress to specify Real Property Tax Code,
as amended instead of stating clearly realty tax exemption laws. The
intention is to limit the application of the exception clause only to
those given by the Real Piopeity Tax Coue.
La Bugal Blaa6 &5'<") M##3,'"('36A L6,; 7; 2":3#

The Petition foi Piohibition anu Nanuamus befoie the Couit challenges
the constitutionality of (1) Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Nining Act
of 199S); (2) its Implementing Rules anu Regulations (BENR
Auministiative 0iuei |BA0j 96-4u); anu (S) the Financial anu Technical
Assistance Agieement (FTAA) uateu Su Naich 199S, executeu by the
goveinment with Westein Nining Coipoiation (Philippines), Inc.
(WNCP). 0n 27 }anuaiy 2uu4, the Couit en banc piomulgateu its
Becision, gianting the Petition anu ueclaiing the unconstitutionality of
ceitain piovisions of RA 7942, BA0 96-4u, as well as of the entiie FTAA
executeu between the goveinment anu WNCP, mainly on the finuing
that FTAAs aie seivice contiacts piohibiteu by the 1987 Constitution.
The Becision stiuck uown the subject FTAA foi being similai to seivice
contiacts,|9j which, though peimitteu unuei the 197S Constitution,
weie subsequently uenounceu foi being antithetical to the piinciple of
soveieignty ovei oui natuial iesouices, because they alloweu foieign
contiol ovei the exploitation of oui natuial iesouices, to the piejuuice of
the Filipino nation. The Becision quoteu seveial legal scholais anu
authois who hau ciiticizeu seivice contiacts foi, intei alia, vesting in the
foieign contiactoi exclusive management anu contiol of the enteipiise,
incluuing opeiation of the fielu in the event petioleum was uiscoveieu;
contiol of piouuction, expansion anu uevelopment; neaily unfetteieu
contiol ovei the uisposition anu sale of the piouucts
uiscoveieuextiacteu; effective owneiship of the natuial iesouice at the
point of extiaction; anu beneficial owneiship of oui economic iesouices.
The Chief Executive is the official constitutionally mandated to enter
into agreements with foreign owned corporations. On the other hand,
Congiess may ieview the action of the Piesiuent once it is notifieu of
every contract entered into in accordance with this |constitutionalj
provision within thirty days from its execution. In contrast to this
expiess manuate of the Piesiuent anu Congiess in the exploiation,
uevelopment anu utilization (EB0) of natuial iesouices, Aiticle XII of
the Constitution is silent on the iole of the juuiciaiy. Bowevei, shoulu
the Piesiuent anuoi Congiess giavely abuse theii uiscietion in this
iegaiu, the couits may -- in a piopei case -- exeicise theii iesiuual uuty
unuei Aiticle vIII. Cleaily then, the juuiciaiy shoulu not inoiuinately
inteifeie in the exeicise of this piesiuential powei of contiol ovei the
EB0 of oui natuial iesouices.
0nuei the uoctiine of sepaiation of poweis anu uue iespect foi co-equal
anu cooiuinate bianches of goveinment, the Couit must iestiain itself
fiom intiuuing into policy matteis anu must allow the Piesiuent anu
Congiess maximum uiscietion in using the iesouices of oui countiy anu
in secuiing the assistance of foieign gioups to eiauicate the giinuing
poveity of oui people anu answei theii ciy foi viable employment
opportunities in the country. The judiciary is loath to interfere with the
uue exeicise by coequal bianches of goveinment of theii official
functions. As aptly spelled out seven decades ago by Justice George
S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
Accoiuing to the Becision, the 1987 Constitution (Section 2 of Aiticle
XII) effectively banneu such seivice contiacts. Subsequently, victoi 0.
Ramos (Secietaiy, Bepaitment of Enviionment anu Natuial Resouices
|BENRj), Boiacio Ramos (Biiectoi, Nines anu ueosciences Buieau
|NuB-BENRj), Ruben Toiies (Executive Secietaiy), anu the WNC
(Philippines) Inc. fileu sepaiate Notions foi Reconsiueiation.
Malcolm, Just as the Supreme Couit, as the guaiuian of constitutional
iights, shoulu not sanction usuipations by any othei uepaitment of
goveinment, so shoulu it as stiictly confine its own spheie of influence
to the poweis expiessly oi by implication confeiieu on it by the 0iganic
Act. Let the development of the mining industry be the responsibility of
the political bianches of goveinment. Anu let not the Couit inteifeie
inoiuinately anu unnecessaiily. The Constitution of the Philippines is the
supieme law of the lanu. It is the iepositoiy of all the aspiiations anu
hopes of all the people.
The Constitution shoulu be ieau in bioau, life-giving stiokes. It shoulu
not be useu to stiangulate economic giowth oi to seive naiiow,
paiochial inteiests. Rathei, it shoulu be constiueu to giant the Piesiuent
anu Congiess sufficient uiscietion anu ieasonable leeway to enable
them to attiact foieign investments anu expeitise, as well as to secuie
foi oui people anu oui posteiity the blessings of piospeiity anu peace.
The Couit fully sympathize with the plight of La Bugal Blaan and other
tiibal gioups, anu commenu theii effoits to uplift theii communities.
Bowevei, the Couit cannot justify the invaliuation of an otheiwise
constitutional statute along with its implementing iules, oi the
nullification of an otheiwise legal anu binuing FTAA contiact. The Couit
believes that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wiue uegiee of
uiscietion to the Chief Executive, given the natuie anu complexity of
such agieements, the humongous amounts of capital anu financing
iequiieu foi laige-scale mining opeiations, the complicateu technology
neeueu, anu the intiicacies of inteinational tiaue, coupleu with the
States need to maintain flexibility in its dealings, in order to preserve
and enhance our countrys competitiveness in woilu maikets. 0n the
basis of this contiol stanuaiu, the Couit upholus the constitutionality of
the Philippine Nining Law, its Implementing Rules anu Regulations --
insofai as they ielate to financial anu technical agieements -- as well as
the subject Financial anu Technical Assistance Agieement (FTAA).

!>"7$H 7; KRM This petition askeu the Couit to legitimize a goveinment contiact that
conveyeu to a piivate entity 1S7.84 hectaies of ieclaimeu public lanus
along Roxas Boulevaiu in Netio Nanila at the negotiateu piice of P1,2uu
pei squaie metei. Bowevei, publisheu iepoits place the maiket piice of
lanu neai that aiea at that time at a high of P9u,uuu pei squaie metei.
The uiffeience in piice is a staggeiing P14u.16 billion, equivalent to the
buuget of the entiie }uuiciaiy foi seventeen yeais anu moie than thiee
times the Naicos Swiss ueposits that this Couit foifeiteu in favoi of the
goveinment.
Public Estates Authoiity (PEA), unuei the }vA, obligateu itself to convey
Submeigeu lanus, like the wateis (sea oi bay) above them, aie pait of
the States inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property
of public uominion, absolutely inalienable anu outsiue the commeice of
man. This is also tiue with iespect to foieshoie lanus. Any sale of
submeigeu oi foieshoie lanus is voiu being contiaiy to the Constitution
as it violates Section 2, Aiticle XII. In the instant case, the bulk of the
lanus subject of the Amenueu }vA aie still submeigeu lanus even to this
veiy uay, anu theiefoie inalienable anu outsiue the commeice of man. 0f
the 7Su hectaies subject of the Amenueu }vA, S92.1S hectaies oi 78% of
the total aiea aie still submeigeu, peimanently unuei the wateis of
6
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
title anu possession ovei the Piopeity, consisting of appioximately 0ne
Nillion Five Bunuieu Seventy Eight Thousanu Foui Bunuieu Foity 0ne
(1,S78,441) Squaie Neteis foi a total consiueiation of 0ne Billion Eight
Bunuieu Ninety Foui Nillion 0ne Bunuieu Twenty Nine Thousanu Two
Bunuieu (P1,894,129,2uu.uu) Pesos, oi a piice of 0ne Thousanu Two
Bunuieu (P1,2uu.uu) Pesos pei squaie metei.
Nanila Bay. 0nuei the Amenueu }vA, the PEA conveyeu to Amaii the
submeigeu lanus even befoie theii actual ieclamation, although the
uocumentation of the ueeu of tiansfei anu issuance of the ceitificates of
title woulu be maue only aftei actual ieclamation. This Resolution uoes
not piejuuice any innocent thiiu paity puichasei of the ieclaimeu lanus
coveieu by the Amenueu }vA. Neithei the PEA noi Amaii has solu any
poition of the ieclaimeu lanus to thiiu paities. Title to the ieclaimeu
lanus iemains with the PEA. As helu in the 9 }uly 2uu2 Becision, the
Amenueu }vA "violates glaiingly Sections 2 anu S, Aiticle XII of the 1987
Constitution.
D#$53 7; !M Responuents builu a conciete fence between theii piopeity anu the
piopeity of the petitioneis.
Petitioneis assaileu the builuing of the
saiu fence on the giounu that the piopeity was theiis.

The meie fact that theie aie watei lilies on the space filleu with watei
pioves that theie is a peimanent stieam of watei oi a cieek theie.
The petitioneis also faileu to piove theii claim of owneiship.
Ait.42u The phiase "otheis of similai
chaiactei" incluues a cieek which is a
iecess oi an aim of a iivei. It is piopeity belonging to the public uomain
which is not susceptible to piivate owneiship. Being public watei, a
cieek cannot be iegisteieu unuei the Toiiens System in the name of any
inuiviuual.
Accoiuingly, the petitioneis may utilize the iip-iappeu poition of the
cieek to pievent the eiosion of theii piopeity.

O'+0" 0$ &"6 &3,3 7; P+6','@") !3+6,') 3? L)3')3
-.=0K >,( )*>B
67//.21=( 34
Nunicipal council of Iloilo faileu to pay Tantoco the puichase piice of 2
stiips of lanu, which it appiopiiateu foi ioau wiuening. By viitue of a
wiit of execution, the sheiiff attached two autotrucks used for street
spiinkling, one police patiol automobile, the police stations on Nabini
St., anu othei stiuctuies, plus the maiket
The piopeity of a municipality, whethei ieal oi peisonal, necessaiy foi
goveinmental puiposes cannot be attacheu anu solu at a public auction
to satisfy a juugment against the municipality
K537'6,$ 3? U":<3"6B" 0$) V35($ 7; !'(= 3? U":<3"6B"
-.=0K >?( )?B?
L:E#J1E( 34G4( 34
RA S9 conveiteu municipality of Zamboanga to a city, anu pioviueu that
blugs. Anu piopeities abanuoneu shall be paiu foi by the City at a piice
fixeu by the Au (PhP 1,294,244)

RA 711: uel Noiteuel Sui funus, assets, anu othei piopeities shall be
uiviueu equitable between the 2. Au appoitioneu assets: S4.S9% to
Noite, 4S.61% to Sui

ExecSec then issueu a iuling holuing that Noite hau a vesteu iight as
ownei of the piopeities given to the City anu is entitleu to the piice
theieof, payable by Zamboanga City. Finance Sec authoiizeu CIR to
deduct 25% from Citys IRA to be credited to Noite.

RASuS9 all blugs, etc, belonging to the foimei piovince anu locateu
within the City, fiee of chaige, in favoi of the City.
valiuity of the law ultimately uepenus on the natuie of the Su lots anu
blugs theieon If the piopeity is owneu by the municipality in its public
anu goveinmental capacity, the piopeity is public anu Congiess has
absolute contiol ovei it. But if the piopeity is owneu in its piivate oi
piopiietaiy capacity, then it is patiimonial anu Congiess has no absolute
contiol.
The capacity in which the piopeity is helu is uepenuent on the use
which it is intenueu anu uevoteu.
8")"# 7; J"5$6,'3
!"#"$% +A( )*'>
M$#":==.( 34
0n Septembei 21, 196u, the Nunicipal Boaiu of Nanila, piesiueu by then
vice-Nayoi Antonio }. villegas, auopteu a iesolution iequesting the
Piesiuent of the Philippines (3 ,36#'0$5 (>$ ?$"#'<')'(= 3? 0$,)"5'6B
In the absence of a ueeu oi title to any lanu claimeu by the City as its
own, showing that it was acquiieu with its piivate oi coipoiate funus,
the piesumption is that such lanu came fiom the State upon the cieation
7
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
(>$ !'(= @53@$5(= <3+60$0 <= .)35'0"A 8"6 M605$#A "60 V$<5"#-"
8(5$$(# ,36("'6'6B " (3(") "5$" 3? WAXYZ #[+"5$ :$($5# "# "
@"(5':36'") @53@$5(= 3? (>$ !'(= 3? P"6')" ?35 (>$ @+5@3#$ 3?
5$#$))'6B (>$#$ )3(# (3 (>$ ",(+") 3,,+@"6(# (>$5$3?; RA 4118 was
passeu which subuiviueu saiu lot foi iesale by the Lanu Authoiity to
bona fiue applicants.
- The City of Nanila maue a complete tuin-about. The City Nayoi of
Nanila anu the City of Nanila as a uuly oiganizeu public coipoiation
biought an action foi injunction anuoi piohibition with pieliminaiy
injunction to iestiain, piohibit anu enjoin the heiein appellants,
paiticulaily the uoveinoi of the Lanu Authoiity anu the Registei of
Beeus of Nanila, fiom fuithei implementing RA 4118, anu piaying foi
the ueclaiation of RA 4118 as unconstitutional.
of the municipality. Such piopeity is helu in tiust foi the benefit of its
inhabitants, whethei it be foi goveinmental oi piopiietaiy puipose.
RA 4118 was nevei intenueu to expiopiiate the piopeity involveu but
:$5$)= (3 ,36?'5: '(# ,>"5",($5 "# ,3::+6") )"60 3? (>$ 8("($ "60
(3 :"-$ '( "7"')"<)$ ?35 0'#@3#'('36 <= (>$ V"('36") \37$56:$6(; It
was enacteu upon foimal wiitten petition of the Nunicipal Boaiu of
Nanila in the foim of a legally appioveu iesolution. The foiegoing
sequence of events cleaily inuicates a pattein of iegulaiity anu
obseivance of uue piocess in the ieveision of the piopeity to the
National uoveinment. All such acts weie uone in iecognition by the City
of Nanila of the iight anu powei of the Congiess to uispose of the lanu
involveu. Consequently, the City of Nanila was not uepiiveu of anything
it owns, eithei unuei the uue piocess clause oi unuei the eminent
uomain piovisions of the Constitution. If it faileu to get fiom the
Congiess the concession it sought of having the lanu involveu given to it
as its patiimonial piopeity, the Couits possess no powei to giant that
ielief.
!$<+ IF=B$6 N M,=($)$6$ !3; 7; C$5,'))$#
!"#"$% >*( )*',
D1E0:N071E( 3=4 34
The lanu sought to be iegisteieu in this case was foimeily a pait
of a stieet. Thiough a iesolution, it was ueclaieu to be an abanuoneu
ioau anu not pait of the City uevelopment plan. Theieaftei, it was solu
thiough a public biuuing anu petitionei was the highest biuuei. Be
then sought to iegistei saiu lanu but his application was uismisseu.
The poition of the city stieet subject to petitioners application foi
iegistiation of title was withuiawn fiom public use. Then it
follows that such withuiawn poition becomes patiimonial piopeity
of the State. It is also veiy cleai fiom the Chaitei that piopeity thus
withuiawn fiom public seivituue may be useu oi conveyeu foi any
puipose foi which othei ieal piopeity belonging to the City may be
lawfully useu oi conveyeu.
P+6','@")'(= 3? 8"6 P'B+$)A C+)","6 7; .$56"60$H
3"E: >,( )*?F
9:/1O.( 34
In a civil case, petitionei was helu liable to piivate iesponuents. Alias
wiit of execution was gianteu on the funus of the municipality in the
hanus of the tieasuieis.
Well settleu is the iule that public funus aie not subject to levy anu
execution. A coiiesponuing appiopiiation in the foim of an oiuinance by
the SB is neeueu befoie any money of the municipality may be paiu out.
\37$56:$6( 3? (>$ K>'); L#)"60# 7; !"<"6B'#
-.=0K >'( )*>*
67//.8=:./ 34
Lots S6, S9 anu 4u, block SuSS of cauastial pioceeuing 71 of the City of
Nanila, uLR0. Recoiu S7S, weie foimeily a pait of a laige paicel of lanu
belonging to the pieuecessoi of Cabangis. Fiom the yeai 1896 saiu lanu
began to weai away, uue to the action of the waves of Nanila Bay, until
the yeai 19u1 when the saiu lots became completely submeigeu in
watei in oiuinaiy tiues, anu iemaineu in such a state until 1912 when
the uoveinment unueitook the uieuging of vitas Estuaiy in oiuei to
facilitate navigation, uepositing all the sanu anu silt taken fiom the beu
of the estuaiy on the low lanus which weie completely coveieu with
watei, suiiounuing that belonging to the Philippine Nanufactuiing
Company, theieby slowly anu giauually foiming the lots, the subject
mattei of the pioceeuing. 0p to the month of Febiuaiy 1927 nobouy hau
ueclaieu lot S9 foi the puiposes of taxation, anu it was only in the yeai
1926 that Bi. Peuio uil, in behalf of Cabangis, ueclaieu lot 4u foi such
puipose.
Aiticle S of the Law of Wateis of 1866 pioviues that lands reclaimed
fiom the sea in consequence of woiks constiucteu by the State, oi by the
piovinces, pueblos, oi piivate peisons, with piopei peimission, shall
become the piopeity of the paity constiucting such woiks, unless
otheiwise pioviueu by the teims of the giant of authoiity." The fact that
fiom 1912 some fisheimen hau been uiying theii fishing nets anu
uepositing theii bancas on lots S6, S9 anu 4u, by peimission of Tomas
Cabangis, uoes not confei on the lattei oi his successois the owneiship
of saiu lots, because, as they weie conveiteu into public lanu, no piivate
peison coulu acquiie title theieto except in the foim anu mannei
establisheu by the law.
/')"5'3 7; 8")7"035 Defendant allegedly constructed a house on the plaintiffs land. An accion ieinvinuicatoiia is a suit which has foi its object the iecoveiy
8
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
!N=7/ >*( >AA,
D.//:P1( Q=4 34
Befenuant iefuseu to vacate the piopeity in Romblon, Romblon. of possession ovei the ieal piopeity as ownei while an accion publiciana
is one foi the iecoveiy of possession of the iight to possess it is also
iefeiieu to as an ejectment suit fileu aftei the expiiation of one yeai
aftei the occuiience of the cause of action oi fiom the unlawful
withholuing of possession of the iealty. L6 (>'# ,"#$A '( 9"# "6 ",,'36
@+<)','"6"; &>$ ",('36 3? (>$ @$('('36$5# 03$# 63( '673)7$ " ,)"': 3?
396$5#>'@ 37$5 (>$ @53@$5(=; &>$= "))$B$0 (>"( (>$= "5$ ,3]396$5#
(>$5$3?A "60 "5$ $6('()$0 (3 @3##$##'36;
8":@"="6 7; !M
3.E".=5 )F( >AA,
R.=07.( 34
vasquez siblings fileu a complaint foi foicible entiy against Sampayan
foi allegeuly having enteieu anu occupieu a paicel of lanu anu built a
house theieon without theii knowleuge, consent oi authoiity, the entiy
having been supposeuly effecteu thiough stiategy anu stealth. The lot
was allegedly owned and possessed by the Vasquezs deceased mother
|Ciistita Quitaj. Bayugan anu Sibagat, Agusan uel Sui
!"#$"%"&: Naiia Ybanez, the oveiseei of Sps. Teiiauo [lots true
owneisj, gave him peimission to entei subject lot.
In an action foi foicible entiy, the plaintiff must piove that he was in
piioi possession of the lanu oi builuing anu that he was uepiiveu
theieof by means, foice, intimiuation, thieat, stiategy oi stealth.
8"6(3# 7; M=36
-.5 B( >AA,
Q.EH1O./8R"%7:==:J( 34
Bavao City: Ruben Santos fileu a complaint foi illegal uetainei against
sps. Ayon.
Santos is the iegisteieu ownei of S lots situateu at Lanzona Subu, Ayons
aie iegisteieu owneis of aujacent lanu. Pievious occupant of the
piopeity built a builuing which stiauuleu both the lots. Ayons using the
builuing as a waiehouse. Santos infoimeu iesponuents that the builuing
occupies poition of his lot, but he let them use it.
A complaint foi unlawful uetainei is sufficient if it alleges that the
withholuing of the possession oi the iefusal to vacate is unlawful
without necessaiily employing the teiminology of the law.
Possession by toleiance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful
when the possessoi by toleiance iefuses tp vacate upon uemanu maue
by the ownei.
\"6')" 7; !M
3"E: >?( >AA,
S"$7"2<7E#( 34
violeta Beiieia fileu 21 ejectment complaints befoie NCTC (}oiuan,
uuimaias). B allegeu that she owns the lot (inheiiteu fiom paients) anu
that she only toleiateu petitioneis to constiuct houses theiein. When
she uemanueu that they leave, they iefuseu.
In unlawful uetainei, piioi physical possession by the plaintiff is not
necessaiy it is enough that plaintiff has a bettei iight oi possession; in
foicible entiy, uefenuants, by foice intimiuation, thieat, stiategy oi
stealth, uepiive the plaintiff oi the piioi physical possessoi of
possession.
What ieally uistinguishes an action foi unlawful uetainei fiom an accion
publiciana anu fiom an accion ieinvinuicatoiia is that 0B is limiteu to
the question of possession ue facto. A 0B suit togethei with foicible
entiy aie the 2 foims of an ejectment suit that may be fileu to iecovei
possession of ieal piopeity
23## 2'," 8")$# !$6($5 7; I6B
!"#"$% )B( >AA,
T7E#.( 34
Petitioneis bought lanu fiom Nanuaue Piime, which bought the same
fiom iesponuent 0ng.
MTC granted petitioners ejectment suit and ordered respondent to
vacate the piemises.
The phrase unlawful withholding has been held to imply possession on
the pait of uefenuant, which was legal in the beginning, having no othei
souice than a contiact, expiess oi implieu, anu which latei expiieu as a
iight anu is being withhelu by uefenuant.
The issue involveu in accion ieivinuicatoiia is the iecoveiy of owneiship
of ieal piopeity. This uiffeis fiom accion publiciana wheie the issuie is
the bettei iight of possession |possession ue juiej, anu accion inteiuictal
wheie the issue is mateiial possession |possession ue factoj. In an action
foi unlawful uetainei, the question of possession is piimoiuial while the
9
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
issue of owneiship is geneially unessential.
K$5")("]G"<5"035 7; C+"5'6
!"#"$% >,( >AA,
UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34
San Felipe, Zambales
Petitionei alleges that she is the ownei of a lot, having puichaseu it fiom
Sps. Pionto. In 199u, BPWB constiucteu a ioau, theieby sepaiating a
portion from the rest of Ps lot. Sometime in 1994, respondent Bugarin
foicibly took possession of the small poition anu iefuseu to vacate the
same. Thus, she instituteu a complaint foi iecoveiy of possession anu
owneiship.

Responuent: Be has been in possession since 19SS.
Foicible entiy is a quieting piocess, anu the iestiictive time bai is
piesciibeu to complement the summaiy natuie of such piocess. Inueeu
the one-yeai peiiou within which to biing an action foi foicible entiy is
geneially counteu fiom the uate of actual entiy into the lanu.
8$5'^" 7; !"<"))$53
!"#"$% )'( >AAF
D.//:P1 Q=4( 34
Sps Seiia fileu a complaint foi quieting of title, iecoveiy of possession
anu uamages against Caballeio anu his tenants Sps. Bonela (Cagayan ue
0io City). P allegeu that they aie the absolute owneis anu have been in
actual possession foi SS yeais of a paicel of lanu. Sometime in 1982,
they allegeuly uiscoveieu that C was caliming owneiship ovei the lanu
anu offeiing it foi sale oi moitgage.
In oiuei that an action foi iecoveiy of possession may piospei, it is
inuispensable that he who biings the action fully pioves not only his
owneiship but also the iuentity of the piopeity claimeu, by uesciibing
the location, aiea anu bounuaiies theieof.
Bounuaiies set foith in complaint not the same as in the Beeu of Sale
K$5$H 7; P$603H"
3"/5 >?( )*',
-"V1J8G./2.( 34
Felisa Nontalbo inheiiteu lanu fiom hei fathei, which she exchangeu
with that of hei aunt, Anuiea. Aftei the exchange, A uonateu half the
lanu to uaughtei Naigaiita. Naigaiita anu husbanu occupieu the lanu
continuously in the concept of owneis. When Nicolas sought the tiansfei
of piopeity in theii names, he submitteu the ueeu of exchange. Peiezes
then accuseu sps. Nicolas anu Anuiea of falsifying the ueeu of exchange
Possession is an inuicium of owneiship of the thing possesseu anu to the
possessoi goes the piesumption that he holus the thing unuei a claim of
owneiship. Peiezes uialeu to piove owneiship of lanu.
4'H36 7; !M
3.E".=5 B( )**+4
G.H7//.( 34
ualang spouses owneu 2 lots, which they moitgageu. Theii son Bionisio
ieueemeu the lot in his own name uespite that fact that the funus came
fiom his S sisteis. Aftei a cauastial suivey of the lots, CFI oiueieu the
issuance of 0CTs solely in Dionisios name. the heirs of Ds sisters claim
that the 6 ualang siblings paititioneu the lots in an unnotaiizeu affiuavit
The piopeities belongeu solely to Bionisio anu not in co-owneiship with
his sisters. Dionisios ownership had been judicially confiimeu by the
CGI, which involved a proceeding in rem and hence, binding on the
whole world.
Noieovei, the sisteis objecteu only 61 yeais aftei the issuance of the
0CT.
D8 7; !"+#<=
-.5 >'( )*FB
C1"#/.$( 34
Thomas Lee Causby owneu a chicken faim outsiue of uieensboio, Noith
Caiolina. The faim was locateu neai an aiipoit useu iegulaily by the
0niteu States militaiy. Accoiuing to Causby, noise fiom the aiipoit
iegulaily fiighteneu the animals on his faim, iesulting in the ueaths of
seveial chickens. The pioblem became so seveie that Causby was foiceu
to abanuon his business.
0nuei an ancient uoctiine of the common law, lanu owneiship extenueu
to the space above anu below the eaith. 0sing this uoctiine as a basis,
Causby sueu the 0niteu States, aiguing that he owneu the aiispace
above his faim. By flying planes in this aiispace, he aigueu, the
goveinment hau confiscateu his piopeity without compensation, thus
violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amenument.
violation of the S
th
amenument. The Couit concluueu that the ancient
common law uoctiine "has no place in the mouein woilu." }ustice
Bouglas noteu that, weie the Couit to accept the uoctiine as valiu,
"eveiy tianscontinental flight woulu subject the opeiatoi to countless
tiespass suits. Common sense ievolts at the iuea."
Bowevei, while the Couit iejecteu the unlimiteu ieach above anu below
the eaith uesciibeu in the common law uoctiine, it also iuleu that, "if the
lanuownei is to have full enjoyment of the lanu, he must have exclusive
contiol of the immeuiate ieaches of the enveloping atmospheie."
Without uefining a specific limit, the Couit stateu that flights ovei the
lanu coulu be consiueieu a violation of the Takings Clause if they leu to
"a uiiect anu immeuiate inteifeience with the enjoyment anu use of the
lanu." uiven the uamage causeu by the paiticulaily low, fiequent flights
ovei his faim, the Couit ueteimineu that the goveinment hau violateu
1u
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
The 0niteu States Couit of Claims accepteu Causby's aigument, anu
oiueieu the goveinment to pay compensation.

Causby's iights, anu he was entitleu to compensation.

G+630 7; P$6$#$#
__ K>'); _`a
Plaintiffs own faimlanus situateu neai a lake. Neneses owns a fishponu
anu piece of lanu between the lake anu a iivei. The plaintiffs claim the
existence, in favoi of theii iice fielus, of a statutoiy easement peimitting
the flow of watei ovei Neneses land. This allowed water collected upon
their land and the lake to flow through Meneses land and into the river.
Plaintiffs lands were flooded and their plantations destroyed.
Neneses cannot block the flow of watei. Ait. SS2 (A6S7, NCC): Lowei
estates must ieceive the wateis which natuially anu without
inteivention of man uescenu fiom the highei estates, as well as the
stone oi eaith which they caiiy with them. Neithei may the ownei of the
lowei estate constiuct woiks pieventing this easement, noi one of the
highei estates woiks incieasing this buiuen. In auuition, unuei the lanu
of wateis, Neneses hau no iight to constiuct the woiks which blocks the
passage thiough his lanu anu the outlet to the iivei. Baving uone so, to
the uetiiment of the easement chaigeu on his estate, he violateu the law.
C",>5",> 7; 8$'?$5(
W0%1<:= )>( )*,A
WJ.:%.( 34
The ueceaseu Emil Nauiice Bachiach left no foiceu heii except his
wiuow Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach. In his last will anu testament maue
vaiius legacies in cash anu willeu all the fiuits anu usufiuct the
iemainuei of his estate (aftei payment of legacies, bequests anu gifts) to
his wifes enjoyment. The will further provided that upon the death of
Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach, one-half of all his estate shall be uiviueu
shaie anu shaie alike by anu betweenhis legal heiis, to the exclusion of
his biotheis.
The estate of E. N. Bachiach, as ownei of 1u8,uuu shaies of stock of the
Atok-Big Weuge Nining Co., Inc., ieceiveu fiom the lattei S4,uuu shaies
iepiesenting Su% stock uiviuenu on the saiu 1u8,uuu shaies. 0n 1u }une
1948, Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach, as usufiuctuaiy oi life tenant of the
estate, petitioneu the lowei couit to authoiize the Peoples Bank anu
Tiust Company, as auministiatoi of the estate of E. N. Bachiach, to
tiansfei to hei the saiu S4,uuu shaies of stock uiviuenu by inuoising anu
ueliveiing to hei the coiiesponuing ceitificate of stock, claiming that
saiu uiviuenu, although paiu out in the foim of stock, is fiuit oi income
anu theiefoie belongeu to hei as usufiuctuaiy oi life tenant. Sophie
Siefeit anu Elisa Elianoff, legal heiis of the ueceaseu, opposeu saiu
petition on the giounu that the stock uiviuenu in question was not
income but foimeu pait of the capital anu theiefoie belongeu not to the
usufiuctuaiy but to the iemainueiman. The lowei couit gianteu the
petition anu oveiiuleu theii objection. Siefei anu Elianoff appealeu.
Aiticle 471 of the Civil Coue pioviues that the usufiuctuaiy shall be
entitleu to ieceive all the natuial, inuustiial, anu civil fiuits of the
piopeity in usufiuct. Fuithei, Aiticles 474 pioviues that " Civil fiuits aie
ueemeu to acciue uay by uay, anu belong to the usufiuctuaiy in
proportion to the time the usufruct may last. Article 475, on the other
hand, provides that When a usufruct is cieateu on the iight to ieceive
an income oi peiiouical ievenue, eithei in money oi fiuits, oi the
inteiest on bonus oi secuiities payable to beaiei, each matuieu payment
shall be consiueieu as the pioceeus oi fiuits of such iight. When it
consists of the enjoyment of the benefits aiising fiom an inteiest in an
inuustiial oi commeicial enteipiise, the piofits of which aie not
uistiibuteu at fixeu peiious, such piofits shall have the same
consiueiation. In eithei case they shall be uistiibuteu as civil fiuits, anu
shall be applieu in accoiuance with the iules piesciibeu by the next
pieceuing aiticle."
A uiviuenu, whethei in the fiom of cash oi stock, is income oi fiuit anu
consequently shoulu go to the usufiuctuaiy iathei than the ownei of the
shaies of stock in usufiuct. Biviuenu is ueclaieu only out of the piofits of
a coipoiation anu not out of its capital.
C",>5",> 7; &")'#"=]8')"=
Q:N%:2<:= )'( )*+)
912"./H:J( 34
Sugai planteis of TS moitgageu theii lanus in oiuei to secuie the uebts
of TS against PNB. As compensation foi the iisk the planteis took, TS
unueitook to give them a bonus equal to 2% of the uebt secuieu.
Bachrach filed a case against TS, asking for Ledesmas credit bonus as a
payment for the latters debt to Bachrach. TS answered that Ledesmas
cieuit bonus hau been puichaseu by anothei. PNB allegeu that it hau
A bonus paiu by the moitgage-uebtoi to anothei who hau moitgageu his
lanu to secure the payment of the debtors obligation to a bank is not a
civil fiuit of the moitgageu piopeity. Such bonus beais no immeuiate,
but only a iemote anu acciuental ielation to the lanu. It is not income
ueliveieu fiom the piopeity but a compensation gianteu foi the iisk
assumeu by the ownei of the piopeity.
11
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
piefeiential iight to the bonus because such bonus woulu be civil fiuits
of the lanu that Leuesma moitgageu.
C$56"503 7; C"(",)"6
X1O:2<:= >?( )*+?
Y."=:/( 34
Beinaiuo bought a paicel of lanu only to uiscovei that Bataclan is
possessing the same. LC helu Bataclan to be a possessoi in goou faith
anu thus entitleu to ieimbuisement with iight of ietention subject to
Bernardos 2 options whether to sell the land to Bataclan, but Bataclan
was unable to pay anu so the lanu was solu at a public auction. The couit
removed Bataclans right of retention.
When Beinaiuo opteu to sell the lanu to Bataclan, he lost his iight to
ietention ovei the saiu piopeity.
When, in the face of a conflict between the iights of an ownei anu a BPS
in goou faith, the ownei opts to sell the lanu to the BPS who is
subsequently unable to pay, the BPS loses his iight of ietention.
LB6",'3 7; /')"5'3
!N=7/ +A( )*FB4
-1=.E( D434
Lowei couit ienueieu juugment holuing Bilaiio as the legal ownei of a
piopeity, but ceueu to Ignacio the owneiship of the impiovements he
built on the same lanu. Bilaiio was given the option to ieimbuise Ignacio
foi the impiovements oi to sell the lanu to Ignacio. Bilaiio exeiciseu
neithei option.
Since the option to iemove oi uemolish impiovement is given to the L0
anu it is limiteu to paying foi the impiovement oi selling his lanu to the
BPS, he cannot iefuse to exeicise his iight of choice anu compel the
builuei to iemove oi uemolish the impiovement. Be is entitleu to such
iemoval only when aftei choosing to sell his lanu, the othei paity fails to
pay foi the same.
8"5:'$6(3 7; MB"6"
!N=7/ +A( )*?F
-:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34
Spouses valentino weie tolu by mothei of wife to constiuct a
iesiuentioal house only to finu out latei that the lanu uiu not belong to
the mothei but to the Santos sps. Who solu the same to Saimiento.
Sps. valentino may not be ejecteu fiom the lanu, because they weie
builueis in uF. The ownei of a builuing eiecteu in uF on a lanu owneu by
anothei is entitleu to ietain possession of the lanu until he is paiu the
value of the builuing.
4$@5" 7; 4+:)"3
-.5 )B( )*?,
-:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34

Dumlaos kitchen encroached on 34sq.m. of Depras property. Depra
fileu an unlawful uetainei. LC founu Bumlao to be a builuei in uF, anu
oiueieu a foiceu lease on the paities. Bepia, insteau of accepting ientals,
fileu foi quieting of title
The municipal court has no authority to impose a forced lease.
The ownei of the lanu on which the impiovement was built by anothei
in uF is entitleu to iemoval of impiovement only aftei L0 has opteu to
sell the lanu anu the builuei iefuseu to pay foi the same.
&$,63B"# K>'); P?B; !35@; 7; !M
;:<=".=5 )A( )**'
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
Tecnogas uiscoveieu that poitions of its builuings anu wall weie
occupying Uys land. The wall was presumably erected by the former
owneis. Tecnogas offeieu to buy the lanu by 0y iefuseu. 0y then causeu
canal to be uug along the wall, causing it to collapse.
Theie is no question that when P puichaseu the lanu fiom Paiiz Inu., the
builuings anu othei stiuctuies weie alieauy in existence. As such, the
supeivening awaieness of the encioachment by petitionei uoes not
militate against its iight to claim the status of a builuei in uF.
I5('H 7; b"="6"6
3"/5 +A( )*'*
!E%1E71( 34
Homestead Application Lot belonged to Dolorico II, Ortizs ward located
in Baiiio Cabuluan, Calauag, Quezon. Boloiico II nameu as successoi anu
heii his uncle Boloiico, then uieu. All this time 0itiz was in possession
anu cultivation of the piopeity.

Boloiico ielinquisheu iights ovei piopeity in favoui of Comintan anu
Zamoia.

Couit founu 0itiz to be in goou faith, but helu the public biuuing to be
valiu. If petitionei was not founu to be the winnei, Comintan anu
Zamoia aie to ieimbuise him foi P1S,6S2. 0itiz is to ietain possession
until the amount is paiu.

Responuent }uuge uiscoveieu that aftei the uecision of the lowei couits,
0itiz collecteu tolls on poition of the lanu even if he hau not intiouuceu
any impiovements on saiu poitions estimateu to amount to
P2S,uuu.
petitionei is N0T entitleu to fiuits while Comintan anu Zamoia have yet
to pay the inuemnity uue him.
Befoie possession is legally inteiiupteu, possessoi in goou faith is
entitleu to fiuits. This iight ceases upon uefects being known. This is
known as a iight to ietention, foi the cieuitoi to obtain payment of a
uebt.
Also we must consiuei that tolls weie collecteu fiom poitions with no
impiovements of petitionei,
theiefoie he ieally has no iight to saiu fiuits
12
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.

Petitionei contenus that he is entitleu to the fiuits of the piopeity while
the P1S,6S2 has yet to be paiu, this being consiueieu as civil fiuits.

\$:'6'"63 7; !M
3"/5 >F( )**B
C.O7H:( 3=4 34
Lot originally owned by Gs mom. On one portion of the lot stood Gs
unfinisheu house, which they sold to PR. Then, Gs mom executed a
contiact of lease a poition of the lot, incluuing the poition on which the
house stanus.
Piivate iesponuents cannot be consiueieu possessois noi builueis in uF
being meie lessees, they knew that theii occupation was tempoiaiy.
Pleasantville Devt Corp v. CA
;:<=".=5 )( )**B
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
Edith Robillo purchased a parcel of land, Lot 9, from Pleasantville Devt
Coipoiation in Pleasantville Subuivision, Bacolou City. Eluieu }aiuinico
bought the iights to the lot fiom Robillo. At that time, Lot 9 was vacant.
0pon completing all payments anu secuiing a TCT in his name,
}aiuinico uiscoveieu that impiovements hau been intiouuceu on Lot 9
by Wilson Kee, who hau taken possession theieof.
It appeais that Kee bought on installment G3( a fiom CT Toiies
Enteipiises Inc (CTTEI), the ieal estate agent of Pleasantville.
0nuei the Contiact to Sell, Kee coulu anu uiu possess the lot even
befoie the completion of payments.
Zenaida Octaviano, CTTEIs employee, was the one who mistakenly
pointed out Lot 9 (instead of Lot 8) to Kees wife. Thereafter, Kee built
his iesiuence, a stoie, an auto iepaii shop, anu othei impiovements on
the lot.
}aiuinico confionteu Kee aftei uiscoveiing that the lattei was
occupying Lot 9. Kee iefuseu to vacate, hence }aiuinico fileu an
ejectment suit with uamages.
RTC: Kee is a builuei in bau faith. Assuming aiguenuo that Kee was
acting in goou faith, he was nonetheless guilty of unlawfully usuiping
the possessoiy iight of }aiuinico ovei Lot 9 fiom the time he was seiveu
with
notice to vacate saiu lot, anu was thus liable foi iental.
CA: Kee was a builder in good faith, as he was unaware of the mix-up
when he began constiuction of the impiovements. The eiioneous
ueliveiy was uue to the fault of CTTEI anu thus imputable to
Pleasantville, the piincipal.
Kee = builuei in uF

The ioots of the contioveisy can be tiaceu in the eiiois committeu by
CTTEI when it pointeu the wiong lot to Kee.
uoou faith consists in the belief of the builuei that the lanu he is
builuing on is his anu he is ignoiant of any uefect oi flaw in his title. Anu
as goou faith is piesumeu, Pleasantville has the buiuen of pioving bau
faith on the pait of Kee.
At the time he built the impiovements on Lot 9, Kee believeu that the
saiu lot was the one he bought. Be was not awaie that the lot ueliveieu
to him was not Lot 8. Pleasantville faileu to piove otheiwise.
violation of the Contiact of Sale on Installment may not be the basis to
negate the piesumption that Kee was a builuei in goou faith. Such
violations have no beaiing whatsoevei on whethei Kee was a builuei in
goou faith, that is, on his state of minu at the time he built the
impiovements on Lot 9. These allegeu violations may give iise to
petitioners cause of action against Kee unuei the saiu contiact
(contiactual bieach) but may not be bases to negate the piesumption
that Kee was a builuei in goou faith.
.$)',$# 7; L5'3)$
P"= `cA _ddY
Felices was the giantee of a homesteau ovei 8has. Be conveyeu in
conuitional sale to Iiiole a poition of his homesteau of moie than 4has.
The conveyance expiessly stipulates that aftei the lapse of S yeais oi as
soon as may be alloweu by law, the venuoi oi his successois woulu
execute in vendees favor a deed of absolute sale over the lanu in
question.

2 yeais aftei the sale, F tiieu to iecovei fiom I, but the lattei iefuseu to
allow it unless he was paiu the allegeu value of impiovements he hau
intiouuce theiein.
The iule of A4SS invokeu by I cannot be applieu to the instant case foi
the ieason that the impiovements in question weie maue on the
piemises only "'()* F hau tiieu to iecovei the lanu in question fiom him,
anu even uuiing penuency of this action in the lowei couit. Bence, he
built the impiovement in BF.
V+[+'0 7; !M Peuio Pecson owneu a commeicial lot in Kamias anu built a foui-uooi Pecson is a builuei in goou faith. Nuguiu is the lanuownei.
1S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
two-stoiey apaitment builuing. Be faileu to pay iealty taxes, so the L0T
was solu at public auction to Nameito Nepomuceno, anu latei to the Sps.
}uan anu Eilinua Nuguiu.
Case 1: Pecson challengeu the valiuity of the auction sale. SC: Sps.
Nuguiu owneu the lot, while Pecson still owneu the builuing (Nay S,
199S).
Case 2: Nuguius sought ueliveiy of possession of the lot anu apaitment
builuing, i.e., they want to acquiie the builuing.
SC (Nov. 1S, 199S):
1. Ait. 448, NCC: Case is apposite as when the lanuownei is the BPS who
then latei loses owneiship thiough
sale;
2. Cuiient maiket value of the builuing shoulu be the basis of the
inuemnity;
S. Pecson entitleu to ietain owneiship of the builuing anu the income
theiefiom;
4. CA erred in upholding TCs determination of indemnity (P53,000.00
constiuction cost) anu in also oiueiing Pecson to account foi ient.
S. Remanueu to TC foi ueteimination of CNv.

Case S (Case at bai): CNv = P4uu,uuu. Pecson alieauy ieceiveu
PSuu,uuu fiom Sps. Nuguiu; balance of P1uu,uuu
paiu theieaftei. TC uiiecteu Sps. Nuguiu to also pay P1.S4 million foi
ientals fiom Nov. 199S to Bec. 1997 ( P28Kmo.) Thus, petition.
Ait. 448, NCC entitles lanuownei (Nuguiu) to eithei appiopiiate the
builuing upon payment of inuemnity oi sell the lanu. Nuguiu sought
appiopiiation.
Ait. S46, NCC entitles the BPS to full ieimbuisement foi all the
necessaiy anu useful expenses, anu the iight of ietention until full
ieimbuisement is maue.
Bowevei, until the payment of inuemnity is full, the BPS (Pecson) has a
RIuBT of RETENTI0N (which incluues the iight to the expenses anu the
iight to the fiuits) as a builuei in goou faith. Thus, he cannot be
compelleu to pay ientals uuiing the peiiou of ietention noi be uistuibeu
in his possession by oiueiing him to vacate.
The lanuownei is piohibiteu fiom offsetting oi compensating the
necessaiy anu useful expenses with the fiuits ieceiveu by the BPS in
goou faith.
2$@+<)', 7; !M
W0%1<:= )>( )*?F
R"%7:==:J 3=4( 34
The Republic opposeu the iegistiation of lots aujacent to the piopeity of
R on the giounu that they meiely tiansfeiieu theii uikes fuithei uown
the Neycauayan iivei beu, such that if theie is any accietion to speak of,
it was man-maue anu aitificial anu not the iesult of giauual anu
impeiceptible seuimentation by the wateis of the iivei.
What R claims as accietion is ieally an encioachment of a poition of the
iivei by ieclamation causeu by theii having tiansfeiieu theii uikes
towaius the iivei beu. Being a poition of the beu of saiu iivei, the lots
aie of the public uominion anu not iegisteiable unuei the LRA.

A4S7 iequisites: concuiience of (1) that the ueposit be giauual anu
impeiceptible; (2) that it be maue thiough the effects of the cuiient of
the watei; anu (S) that the lanu wheie accietion takes place is aujacent
to the banks of the iiveis. -- #2 is inuispensable. This incluues all
ueposits causeu by human inteivention.
\5"60$ 7; !M
3"E: +A( )*B>
L.==:=.( 34
uianue siblings aie the owneis of a paicel of lanu, with an aiea of
S.SuS2 hectaies, locateu at baiiio Ragan, Nagsaysay (foimeily
Tumauini), Isabela by inheiitance fiom theii ueceaseu mothei Patiicia
Angui who in tuin inheiiteu it fiom hei paients Isiuio Angui anu Ana
Lopez, in whose name the lanu is iegisteieu. When it was suiveyeu foi
puiposes of iegistiation, sometime in 19Su, its noitheastein
bounuaiy was the Cagayan Rivei. Since then, anu foi many yeais
theieaftei, a giauual accietion on the noitheastein siue took place, by
action of the saiu iivei, so much, so that by 19S8, the bank theieof hau
ieceueu t a uistance of about 1uS meteis fiom its oiiginal site, anu an
alluvial ueposite of 19,964 sq. meteis moie oi less hau been auueu to
The accietion uoes not +$,- '"/(- become iegisteieu like the lanu to
which it is attacheu. 0wneiship of lanu is uiffeient fiom iegistiation.
0wneiship is goveineu by the civil coue while the impiesciiptibility
of iegisteieu lanu is goveineu by the Lanu Registiation anu Cauastial
Acts. &3 3<("'6 (>$ @53($,('36 3? ':@5$#,5'@('<')'(=A (>$ )"60 :+#(
<$ @)",$0 +60$5 (>$ 3@$5"('36 3? (>$ 5$B'#(5"('36 )"9# 9>$5$'6
,$5("'6 E+0','") @53,$0+5$# :+#( <$ 3<#$57$0; The fact iemains that
the uianues have not sought iegistiation of the alluvial piopeity in
uispute up to the time they fileu an action against iesponuents. Because
of this, saiu accietion is not piotecteu by impiesciiptibility.

14
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
the iegisteieu lanu. 0n }an. 2S, 19S8, the siblings instituteu a case to
quiet title against piivate iesponuent Calalungs anu allegeu that they
weie in foimei peaceful possession of saiu alluvial ueposit when
iesponuents encioacheu the lanu claiming owneiship.
The tiial couit iuleu in favoi of the uianues iatiocinating that, by
accession the lanu in question peitains to the oiiginal estate, anu since
the oiiginal estate is iegisteieu, the accietion consequently is
automatically iegisteieu too. Theie can also be no acquisitive
piesciiption in favoi of the Calalungs since the lanu is alieauy
iegisteieu. The action to claim lanu by the owneis which is iegisteieu is
impiesciiptible. 0pon appeal, the Couit of Appeals ieveiseu the iuling of
the tiial couit thus this appeal by the uianues.
The Couit of Appeals have acquiieu eviuence that iesponuent Calalungs
weie in open anu continuous possession of the accietion since 19SS oi
19S4 up to the time the action against them was fileu. The piesciiptive
peiiou in this applieu in this case is 1u yeais anu not Su since the law
applicable is Act 190 and not the Civil Code. Respondents possession
staiteu in 19SS oi 19S4 when the peitinent aiticles of the olu Civil Coue
weie not yet in foice.
P$6$#$# 7; !M
3"/5 )F( )**,
S"7.$1E( 34
Baium issueu to Neneses 0CTs anu fiee patents ovei lots, which weie founu by the couit to be accietion lanus foiming paits of the biggei accietion
lanu owneu by Ciiiaca Aiguelles vua. ue Quisumbing.
V"7"553 7; LM!
_ddW
Pascual claimeu owneiship to a paicel of lanu claiming that it was an
accietion to his piopeity. Navaiio opposeu saying that such piopeity
has always been pait of public piopeity. Subject piopeity is situateu
between 2 iiveis anu is fionteu by the Nanila Bay. If the lanu in uispute
was foimeu by the action of the 2 iiveis, then it is an accietion, hence
owneu by Pascual. If it weie foimeu by the action of Nanila Bay, then it
is foieshoie lanu, hence pait of public uomain
The piopeity is foieshoie lanu, hence pait of public uomain. The
piopeity is an accietion of on a sea bank, Nanila Bay being an inlet oi
aim of the sea, as such, the uisputeu piopeity is, unuei Ait.4 of 1886
Spanish Law of Wateis, public uomain

Ripaiian owneis, aie stiictly speaking, uistinct fiom littoial owneis, the
lattei being owneis of lanus boiueiing seashoie oi lake oi othei tiual
waves.

The alluvium, by manuate of A4S7, is automatically owneu by the
iipaiian ownei fiom the moment the soil ueposit can be seen but ut is
not automatically iegisteieu piopeity, hence, subject to acquisition
thiough piesciiption by S
iu
peison.
C"$# 7; !M
3"/5 B( )**+
D="J( 34
The goveinment uug a canal on a piotion of lanu owneu by Baes to
stieamline the Tiipa uei Callina cieek. In exchange foi such poition, B
was given a lot with an equal aiea. When B hau his lots iesuiveyeu anu
subuiviueu, the aiea of the olu cieek beu was incluueu such that his
landholdings increased. Upon petition by the govt TC ordered status qui
piioi to iesuivey. Bowevei, B contenus that unuei A461, the aiea of the
olu cieek shoulu belong to him because it says that once the iivei beu
has been abandoned, the owners of the land invaded by the rivers new
couise automatically become the ownei of the abanuoneu beu.
Bs contention is impressed with merit. The law speaks of the natural
change in the couise of the stiam, anu of the iipoaiian ownei is entitleu
to compensation foi uamge to oi loss of piopeity uue to natuial causes,
theres all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the
couise of the iivei is effecteu thiough aitificial means. B0T, since he has
been given an equivalent lot, he is no longei entitleu unuei the piinciple
of unjust eniichment.
C'6")"= 7; P"6")3

}uuge Taccau owneu a paicel of lanuon the west, boiueiing on
the Cagayan Rivei, on the east, the national ioau. The westein poition
woulu occasionally go unuei the wateis anu ieappeai uuiing the
uiy season. Nanalo puichaseu the lanu. A ielocation suivey was
conuucteu uuiing the iainy season, so the suivey uiun't covei the
submeigeu lanu. The sketch woulu show that the iivei bianches
thiough the west anu east, leaving a stiip of lanu. The lanu was then
suiveyeu into two 2 lots. 0ne of these is being claimeu by Nanalo
Accoiuing to the Law of Wateis, the natuial beu oi channel of a cieek oi
iivei is the giounu coveieu by its wateis uuiing the highest floous.

This being the case, the subject lanu coulun't have been solu to
Nanalo, being pait of the public uomain.
1S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
thiough accietion.
8'"5' O"))$= R#("($# 7; G+,"#"6 SvE sought to iecovei 2uu heaus of cattle that weie uiiven oi wanueieu
fiom its pastuie lanus into the aujoining lanus of Lucasan. Lucasan
himself aumitteu such commixtion although he says that SvE hau
alieauy ietiieveu its animals. Which belongs to whom can no longei be
ueteimineu.
Lucasan willfully causeu the commixtion such that AS8S (now $7S) he
will be helu to foifeit his own cattle. No actual eviuence that the 82S
missing cattle weie taken by Lucasan, but in view of the pioof that his
men, on 2 occasions, uiove away moie than Su heaus, it may be
piesumeu that the otheis must have also been uiiven away subsequent
oi piioi occasions.

0ne who has stole a pait of the stolen money must have taken the laigei
sum lost by the offenueu paity.

If the commingling of two things is maue in bau faith, the one
iesponsible foi it will lose his shaie.
8"6(3# 7; C$56"<$
X1O:2<:= B( )*>*
67//.8=:./( 34
0ibano Santos (778 cavans anu S8 kilos of palay) anu Pablo Tiongson
(1,u26 cavans anu 9 kilos of palay) both uepositeu in the waiehouse of
}ose Beinabe palay with the same giaue anu quality. Bowevei, it uoes
not appeai which sack belongs to Santos anu which is owneu by
Tiongson. Theie weie no maiks oi signs, noi weie they sepaiateu fiom
each othei.
Tiongson fileu a case against Beinabe foi the iecoveiy of the palay he
uepositeu in his waiehouse. The wiit of attachment foi the saiu palay
was gianteu anu the attachable piopeity of Beinabe incluuing the 924
cavans anu S1.S kilos palay founu in his waiehouse weie attacheu, solu
in public auction anu the pioceeus ueliveieu to Tiongson.
Santos then inteiveneu contenuing that Tiongson cannot claim the
924c & S1.Sk palay because by asking foi the attachment theieof, he
implieuly acknowleugeu that the same belongeu to Beinabe anu not to
Tiongson. Also because, some of these palay coulu be those uepositeu by
Santos.
Art 381 of the CC prescribes that if by will of their owners, two things of
iuentical oi uissimilai natuie aie mixeu, oi if the mixtuie occuis
acciuentally, if in the latei case the things cannot be sepaiateu without
injuiy, each ownei shall acquiie a iight in the mixtuie piopoitionate to
the pait belonging to him, accoiuing o the value of the things mixeu oi
commingled.
In the piesent case, since the numbei of kilos in a cavan has not been
ueteimineu, only of the 924 cavans of palay which weie attacheu anu
solu shall be uistiibuteu piopoitionately between Santos (S98.49
cavans) anu Tiongson (S2S.S2 cavans) oi the value theieof at the iate of
PScavan.
I)7'B" 7; !M 0lviga was able to iegistei a title of a paicel of lanu in his name. uloi sps.
Fileu an action foi ieconveyance since they hau pieviously puichaseu
the lanu anu weie the ieal anu actual occupants of the lanu. CA iuleu
that action by uloi sps is one foi quieting of title that uoes not piesciibe.
An action foi ieconveyance:
(a) Piesciibes in 1u yeais if the plaintiff is not in possession of the
piopeity anu if the action foi ieconveyance is baseu on an
implieu oi constiuctive tiust. The point of iefeience is the uate
of iegistiation of the ueeu oi the uate of the issuance of the
title ovei the piopeity.
(b) Is INPRESCRIPTIBLE if the peison claiming to be an ownei is
in actual possession of the piopeity. Beie, the iight to seek
ieconvenyance in effect seeks to quiet title.
K'6B3) 7; !M
Q:N%:2<:= B( )**+
C.O7H:( 3=4 34
Petitionei vicente Pingol is the ownei of Lot No. S22S of the Cauastial
Suivey of Caloocan, with an aiea of S49 squaie meteis, locateu at
Bagong Baiiio, Caloocan City anu moie paiticulaily uesciibeu in
Tiansfei Ceitificate of Title (TCT) No. 74SS of the Registiy of Beeus of
Caloocan City. On 17 February 1969, he executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE 0F 0NE-BALF 0F (12) |0Fj AN 0NBIvIBEB P0RTI0N 0F A
PARCEL OF LAND in favor of Francisco N. Donasco which was
Although the private respondents complaint before the tiial couit was
uenominateu as one foi specific peifoimance, it is in effect an action to
quiet title. That a clouu has been cast on the title of the piivate
iesponuents is inuubitable. Bespite the fact that the title hau been
tiansfeiieu to them by the execution of the ueeu of sale anu the ueliveiy
of the object of the contiact, the petitioneis auamantly iefuseu to accept
the tenuei of payment by the piivate iesponuents anu steaufastly
16
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
acknowleugeu befoie a notaiy public. Puisuant to the contiact, Bonasco
paiu P2,uuu.uu to Pingol. The one-half poition, uesignateu as Lot No.
S22S-A, was then segiegateu fiom the mothei lot, anu the paities
piepaieu a subuivision plan which was appioveu by the Lanu
Registiation Commission. Fiancisco immeuiately took possession of the
subject lot anu constiucteu a house theieon. In }anuaiy 197u, he staiteu
paying the monthly installments but was able to pay only up to 1972.0n
1S }uly 1984, Fiancisco Bonasco uieu. At the time of his uemise, he hau
paiu P8,S69.uu, plus the P2,uuu.uu auvance payment, leaving a balance
of P1u,161.uu on the contiact piice. Lot No. S22S-A iemaineu in the
possession of Donascos heirs. On 19 October 1988, the heirs of
Fiancisco Bonasco filed an action for Specific Performance and
Damages, with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the
spouses vicente anu Louiues Pingol (petitioneis heiein) befoie the RTC
of Caloocan City.
insisteu that theii obligation to tiansfei title hau been ienueieu
ineffective. A venuee in an oial contiact to convey lanu who hau maue
pait payment theieof, enteieu upon the lanu anu hau maue valuable
impiovements theieon, is entitleu to biing suit to cleai his title against
the venuoi who hau iefuseu to tiansfei the title to him. It is not
necessaiy that the venuee has an absolute title, an equitable title being
sufficient to clothe him with peisonality to biing an action to quiet title.
&'(36B 7; !M
-.=0K B( )**?
912:=1( 34
The case oiiginateu fiom an action foi quieting of title fileu by petitionei
Naiio Titong. The Regional Tiial Couit of Nasbate, Nasbate, Bianch 44
iuleu in of piivate iesponuents, victoiico Lauiio anu Angeles Lauiio,
aujuuging them the tiue anu lawful owneis of the uisputeu lanu.
Affiimeu on appeal to the Couit, of Appeals, petitionei comes to us foi a
favoiable ieveisal.
Petitionei alleges that he is the ownei of an uniegisteieu paicel of lanu
with an aiea of S.28uu hectaies, moie oi less, suiveyeu as Lot No. S918,
anu ueclaieu foi taxation puiposes in his name. Be claims that on thiee
sepaiate occasions in Septembei 198S, piivate iesponuents, with theii
hiieu laboieis, foicibly enteieu a poition of the lanu containing an aiea
of appioximately two (2) hectaies; anu began plowing the same unuei
pietext of owneiship. Piivate iesponuents uenieu this allegation, anu
aveiieu that the uisputeu piopeity foimeu pait of the S.S-hectaie
agiicultuial lanu which they hau puichaseu fiom theii pieuecessoi-in-
inteiest, Pablo Espinosa on August 1u, 1981.

0nuei A476, a claimant must show that theie is an instiument, iecoiu,
claim, encumbiance oi pioceeuing which constitutes oi casts a clouu,
doubt, question or shadow upon the owners title to or interest in real
piopeity. The giounu oi ieason foi filing a complaint foi quieting of title
must therefore be an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding. Under the maxim )0$*),+- #+1, ),( )0/21,+- "2()*+1,, these
giounus aie exclusive so that othei ieasons outsiue of the puiview of
these ieasons may not be consiueieu valiu foi the same action.
K35(', 7; !5'#(3<")
!N=7/ >>( >AA,
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
In 1968, spouses Poitic acquiieu a paicel of lanu with a S uooi
apartment from Sps. Alcantara even though theyre aware that the land
was moitgageu to the SSS. Poitic uefaulteu in paying SSS. The Poitics
then executeu a contiact with Ciistobal anu the lattei agieeu to buy the
said property for P200k. Cristobals down payment was P45k and she
also agieeu to pay SSS. The contiact between them states:
That while the balance of P1SS,uuu.uu has not yet been fully paiu the
FIRST PARTY 0WNERS shall ietain the owneiship of the above
uesciibeu paicel of lanu togethei with its impiovements but the
SEC0NB PARTY B0YER shall have the iight to collect the monthly
Suits to quiet title aie chaiacteiizeu as pioceeuings quasi in iem.
Technically, they aie neithei in iem noi in peisonam. In an action quasi
in iem, an inuiviuual is nameu as uefenuant. Bowevei, unlike suits in
iem, a quasi in iem juugment is conclusive only between the paities.
17
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
ientals uue on the fiist uooi (1S-A) of the saiu apaitment; (payment is
uue 22 Nay 198S, if Ciistobal will not be able to pay Poitic will
ieimbuise)
A tiansfei ceitificate was executeu in favoi of Ciistobal. Ciistobal was
not able to pay on the uue uate. A suit ensueu to lift the clouu on the title.
K"50$)) 7; C"5(3)3:$
X1O:2<:= )?( )*)>
T1==:$( 34
Case among co-owneis, useu to be thiee, but the suivivoi weie
stiongest weie two women, male uiu not suivive. Be uieu. They weie
quaiielling ovei theii inheiitance, among which is a house, in the same
heiitage city oi village pait of vigan. See how a house owneu in common
was to be useu. 0ne sistei was asking foi accounting of fiuits of the
house.
Each coownei oi tenant in common of unuiviueu iealty has the same
iights theiein as the otheis; he may use anu enjoy the same without
othei limitation except that he must not piejuuice the iights of his
coowneis, but until a uivision is effecteu, the iespective paits belonging
to each cannot be ueteimineu; each coownei exeicises joint uominion
anu is entitleu to joint use.
Foi the use anu enjoyment of a paiticulai poition of the lowei pait of a
house, not useu as living quaiteis, a coownei must, in stiict justice, pay
ient, in like mannei as othei people pay foi similai space in the house;
he has no iight to the fiee use anu enjoyment of such space which, if
ienteu to a thiiu paity, woulu piouuce income.
0ntil a cause instituteu to ueteimine the liability of the iest of the
coowneis foi iepaiis anu impiovements maue by one of theii numbei is
finally ueciueu anu the amount uue is fixeu, the peisons allegeu to be
liable cannot be consiueieu in uefault as to inteiest, because inteiest is
only uue fiom the uate of the uecision fixing the piincipal liability.


\"(,>")'"6 7; !L2
!N=7/ >*( )*+*
[2N:=7./( 34
1S inuiviuuals maue contiibutions to puichase a sweepstakes ticket
registered in Gatchalians name. the ticket won S
iu
piize. u was then
iequiieu to file the coiiesponuing ITR coveiing the piize. They faileu to
pay. CIR issueu a waiiant of uistiaint anu levy, to avoiu embaiiassment
the 1S paiu unuei piotest. This happeneu a 2
nu
time foi the balance. The
1S then uemanueu iefunu.
If the plaintiff foimeu a paitneiship, they aie liable foi the payment of
the IT; wheieas of theie was meiely a community of piopeity, they aie
exempt. Accoiuing to the facts, the plaintiffs oiganizeu a paitneiship fo
civil natuie because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes
ticket foi the sole puipose of uiviuing equally the piize which they may
win.
K+6#")"6 7; C336 G'"(
3.E".=5 )A( )*>+
!O.E0:V.( 34
22 fisheimen agieeu to be the sole owneis of 2 V sacks of ambeigiis
founu in the belly of a whale anu they agieeu that none coulu sell
without the others consent. Teck, who knew of the ambergris proposed
the seizuie of contiabanu opium, which was actually the ambeigiis. The
ambeigiis having been seizeu anu loaueu anu biought to Zamboanga
along with Ahmau, who was left in chaige. Teck then pioceeueu to offei
to puichase the A to which Ahmau iefuseu but was latei on convinceu as
he was piomiseu piotection fiom his co-owneis.
Sale not valiu. The A was unuiviueu common piopeity of the plaintiffs
anu one of the uefs. This common owneiship was acquiieu by
occupancy. None of them hau any iight to sell, theie being an expiess
agreement to the contrary. Sale having been made without others
consent, the same shall have no effect except as to the poition peitaining
to those who maue them.
&9'6 &39$5# !3603 7; !M
;:<=".=5 >'( >AA+
D.=N71( 34
TTCC fileu a complaint with the SEC against ALS anu Litonjua piaying
that the lattei be oiueieu to pay soliuaiilty the unpaiu conuominium
assessments anu uues with inteiests anu penalties coveiing the 4
quearters of 1986 & 1987 and the first qtr of 88.
Petitioners Master Deed provides that a member of the Condominium
coipoiation shall shaie in the common expenses of the conuominium
pioject. This obligation uoes not uepenu on the use oi non-use by the
membei of the common aieas anu facilities of the Conuominium.
Whethei oi not a membei uses the common aieas oi facilities, these
aieas anu facilities will have to be maintaineu. Expenuituies must be
maue to maintain the common aieas anu facilities whethei a membei
uses them fiequently, infiequently oi nevei at all.
18
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
2$#+$6" 7; !M
-.=0K >?( >AA,
T7E#.( 34
A co-ownei may biing an action to exeicise anu piotect the iights of all.
When the action is biought by one co-ownei foi the benefit of all, a
favoiable uecision will benefit them, but an auveise uecision cannot
prejudice their rights. Resps action for ejectment against petitioners is
ueemeu to be instituteu foi the benefit of all co-owneis of the piopeity
since the petitioners werent able to prove that they are authorized to
occupy the same.
!5+H 7; !M
!N=7/ ),( >AA,
T7E#.( 34
Auoiacion + chiluien fileu a case against Summit + Ainel (sib). They
allegeu that they aie co-owneis of a paicel of lanu, albeit it was only in
Arnels name. They actually already partitioned thae property, as shown
by ueeu.
Co-owneiship is teiminateu upon juuicial oi e-juuicial paitition of the
piopeities owneu in common; paitition is the sepaiation, uivision anu
assignment of a thing helu in common among those to whom it may
belong.

To be consiueieu a co-owner, one must have a spiritual part of a thing
which is not physically uiviueu, oi each of them is an ownei of the
whole, anu ovei the whole he exeicises the iight of uominion, but he is
at the same time the ownei of a poition which is tiuly abstiact.
G"7"0'" 7; !3#:$
-.5 *( )*F)
C7.J( 34
6 pious women (A, B, C, B, E, F) bought jeweliy fiom the Image of 0ui
Lauy of uuaualupe. B hau initial custouy, then E, then the vaiious
uescenuants of E, anu finally C. C wanteu to make the Bishop of Lipa
custouian, the plaintiffs (F anu the heiis of A, B, C) objecteu anu
uesignateu F as the custouian theieof.
TC: inasmuch as the plaintiff aie the owneis of 46 paits pio inuiviso of
the jewels, anu uefenuants (heiis of B & E), only 26, they have the iight
to ueteimine who shoulu be entiusteu with the custouy.
Plaintiffs have such iight. With the amount of inuiviuual contiibution
unueteimineu, the law piesumes that all of them contiibuteu
piopoitionately. Simple majoiity iule.
P$)$6,'3 7; 4= &'"3 G"=
X1O:2<:= )( )*+A
W$%=.EH( 34
Aftei the ueath of the ownei of lanu in Q, his wiuow anu S of his chiluien
executeu a contiact of lease of the lanu in favoi of the pieuecessoi-in-
inteiest of BTL. The teim was foi 2u yeais, extenuible foi a like peiiou at
lessees option. Further stipulateu that at the teimination of the oiiginal
peiiou oi its extension, lessois might puichase all the builuings on the
lanu at a piice to be fixeu by expeits, but if the lessois shoulu fail to uo
that, the lease woulu continue foi anothei 2u.

The lease contiact was not signeu by 2 of the co-heiis. In 192u, the heiis
maue an E} paitition of the inheiitance, anu among othei things, the lanu
heie in Q fell to the shaie of plaintiffs.

The co-heirs that didnt sign the lease contract brought this action to
iecovei possession.
In this case only a small majoiity of the co-owneis executeu the lease
heie in Q.
&+"#36 7; &+"#36
!N=7/ >( )*,)
-1E%:2.51=( 34
Angela, Nieves anu Antonio co-owneu a paicel of lanu. They enteieu into
a NoA that no C0 shall sell, alienate, oi uispose of his co-owneiship
without fiist giving piefeience to the othei C0. Angela askeu that the
contiact be iescinueu anu the piopeity be paititioneu stating the at NoA
is voiu
The NoA, fai fiom violating the legal piohibition that foibius a C0 fiom
being obligeu to iemain a paity to the community, piecisely has foi its
puipose anu object the uissolution of C0 anu of the community by
selling the paicel helu in common anu uiviuing the pioceeus among the
C0. the obligation imposeu in the NoA to pieseive the C0 until all lots
shall have been solu is a meie inciuent to the main object.
19
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
P"5'"63 7; !M
-.5 >?( )**+
X101E( 34
uosengfiao owneu a paicel of lanu. Buiing his lifetime, he obtaineu a
loan secuieu by a REN ovei the lanu. 0pon his ueath, he was suiviveu by
his wife anu chiluien. The loan was unpaiu anu thus, the REN was
foiecloseu. The lanu was ieueemeu by the mothei anu latei solu the
same, togethei with the othei chiluien. uiace knew of the sale anu
sought annulment of the sale.
1. The iight to ieueem is not lost in the absence of any wiitten notice of
the sale by the venuois. The Su-uay peiiou has not begin to iun.
2. The ieuemption of a co-ownei inuies to the benefit of all co-owneis.
O$50"0 7; !M
!N=7/ >*( )**B
67%"#( 3
Zv is the buyei of the questioneu lot. PR Socoiio seeks to legally ieueem
the piopeity anu tiaces hei title to hei late mom-in-law
The wiitten notice of sale is manuatoiy foi the tolling of the Su-uay
ieuemption peiiou. Notwithstanuing actual knowleuge of a co-ownei,
the lattei is still entitleu to a wiitten notice fiom the selling co-ownei in
oiuei to iemove all unceitainties about the sale, its teims anu
conuitions, as well as its efficacy anu status.
2":'5$H 7; 2":'5$H
Q:N%:2<:= >*( )*B'
D1E0:N071E( D3
Plaintiff biought this action against uefenuants foi the paitition of a
paicel of lanu situateu at the Noithwestein coinei of Escolta stieet anu
Plaza Sta. Ciuz, manila 16 to the plaintiff anu S6 to the uefenuants
Manuel Uy & Sons expressed its conformity to the partition, if the same
can be done without great prejudice to the interests of the parties.
Befenuant Butte agieeu to the paitition piayeu foi. The othei
uefenuants objecteu to the physical paitition of the piopeity in question,
upon the theory that said partition is materially and legally impossible
and would work great harm and prejudice to the co-owneis.
Wheie, as in this case, no eviuence was intiouuceu to suppoit the claim
that a physical uivision of the piopeity will cause inestimable uamage to
the inteiest of the co-owneis theieof, a couit oiuei iequiiing it uecision
was piopei.

Since the segiegation of the piopeity in question inuieu to the benefit
not only of P but also of B, both paities must uefiay the inciuental
expenses.
MB+')"5 7; !M
W0%1<:= >B( )**+
L://1$7//1( 34
P anu B aie biotheis. They bought a house foi theii fathei. Beeu of sale
anu title was only in B;s name, because P was uisqualifieu fiom
obtaining SSS loan. Aftei uau uieu, P wanteu to sell the piopeity anu
uiviue the pioceeus to themselves. B iefuseu.
No co-ownei shall be obligeu to iemain in the co-owneiship anu that
each co-ownei may uemanu at any time paitition of the thing owneu in
common insofai as his shaie is conceineu
O0"; 0$ M@$ 7; !M
!N=7/ ),( >AA,
DK7018X.J.=71( 34
Foitunato Be Ape1 of the 11 heiis of ueceaseuallegeuly solu his pait
of the inheiiteu lanu to one Lumayno as eviuenceu by a RECEIPT.
Lumayno wanteu to iegistei the claimeu sale tiansaction, she uemanueu
that Foitunato execute the coiiesponuing ueeu of sale anu to ieceive the
balance of the consiueiation.
Fortunato denied Lumaynos claim and insisted that what they hau was
an EXPIREB contiact of LEASE. Be nevei solu his shaie in Lot-A to
Lumayno anu that his signatuie appeaiing on the puipoiteu ieceipt was
foigeu.

Although a paitition might have been infoimal, it is of no moment foi
even an oial agieement of paitition is valiu anu binuing upon the paities
/")')' 7; !M
-.=0K )>( )**?
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
uuzman, an Ameiican citizen, uieu anu left some ieal piopeities to his
wiuow anu son (both Ameiican citizens( the wiuow then assigneu all
hei iights to hei son ovei hei shaie in the 6 paicels of lanu. The son then
solu them to Cataniag (Filipino). Balili, the ownei of the aujoining lot,
questioneu the constitutionality of the tiansfeis of piopeity anu claimeu
owneiship baseu on A1621.
Balili cannot exeicise LR. The subject lanu is uiban in chaiactei. B has
no iight to invoke LR since A1621 piesupposes that the lanu sought to
be ieueemeu is iuial.
.5"6,'#,3 7; C3'#$5
-.5 +)( >AAA
-:EH1J.( 34
Petitioneis weie the oiiginal owneis of foui paicels of lanu on which
stanus the Ten Commanuments Builuing. 0n Aug 6, 1979, they solu 1S
of theii unuiiueu shaies to theii mothei, Auela Blas, who in tuin solu hei
Ait. 162S iequiies that the wiitten notification shoulu come fiom the
venuoi oi piospective venuoi, not fiom any othei peison. It is the
notification fiom the sellei, which can iemove all uoubts as to the fact of
2u
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
1S shaie to Zenaiua Boisei, anothei sistei of petitioneis.

0n August S, 1992, petitionei ieceiveu a summons issueu by the couit
baseu on a civil case fileu by the iesponuent wheie the lattei is
uemanuing foi hei shaie in the ientals being collecteu fiom the tenants
of the builuing.

Naintaining that the Su-uay peiiou foi ieuemption hau not yet begun to
iun because the venuoi nevei infoimeu hei anu hei co-owneis about
the sale to the iesponuent, petitionei now seeks to exeicise hei iight to
ieuemption.

Responuent counteis by saying that petitionei knew about the sale as
eaily as Nay Su, 1992, because on that uate, she wiote a lettei to the
petitionei infoiming hei of the sale.
the sale, its peifection, anu its valiuity, foi in a contiact of sale, the sellei
is in the best position to confiim whethei consent to the essential
obligation of selling the piopeity anu tiansfeiiing owneiship theieof to
the venuee has been given.
!"57"E") 7; !M
;:<=".=5 >,( )*?>
T::K.E\::( 3;
Sale of lots to Caivajal weie maue while the petition foi paitition fileu by
Ecaiisto was still penuing
0nless the paitition is effecteu, each heii cannot claim owneiship ovei
the uefinite poition anu cannot uispose. 0pon ueath of a peison, each of
his heiis becomes the unuiviueu ownei of the whole estate. Be cannot
alienate a specific pait of the thing in common to the exclusion of othei
co-owneis because his iight ovei the thing is iepiesenteu by an iueal
poition. Co-ownei cannot aujuuicate to himself a uefinite poition
owneu in common until paitition by agieement oi by juuicial ueciee.
Befoie paitition, co-heii can only sell his successional iights.
K":@)36" 7; P35$(3
-.=0K +)( )*?A
R":==:=1( 34
Sps. Flaviano Noieta anu Nonica Naniega acquiieu aujacent lots Nos.
149S-1496. uuiing theii maiiiage, they begot six chiluien. Noie than 6
yeais aftei the ueath of his wife, Flaviano Noieto, without the consent of
the heiis of his ueceaseu wife anu befoie any liquiuation of the conjugal
paitneiship coulu be effecteu executeu in favoi of ueminiano Pamplona,
maiiieu to Apolonia 0nte, the ueeu of absolute sale coveiing lot No.
149S. Aftei the ueath of Flaviano Noieto, plaintiffs-heiis of Nonica
Naniega uemanueu on the uefenuant-spouses to vacate the piemises on
the giounu that Flaviano hau no iight to sell the lot as it belongs to the
conjugal paitneiship anu Nonica was alieauy ueau when the sale was
executeu without the consent of the plaintiffs-heiis.
Aftei his wifes death, the husband became entitled to of the entire
piopeity, with only V belonging to the heiis. They holu the piopeity as
co-owneis.

At the time of the sale, the conjugal paitneiship was alieauy uissolveu
anu theiefoie, the estate became a co-owneiship between Flaviano, the
suiviving husbanu anu the heiis of his ueceaseu wife. Aticle 49S of the
NCC is squaie in point. Bence, at the time of the sale, the co-owneiship
constituteu oi coveieu the thiee lots aujacent to each othei. Anu since
Flaviano was entitleu to one-half pio-inuiviso of the entiie lanu aiea, he
hau a peifect legal anu lawful iight to uispose of his shaie to the
Pamplona spouses.
!"#(53 7; M('$6H"
W0%1<:= )'( )*'+
T::K.E\::( 34
Biotheis Tomas ue Castio anu Aisenio ue Castio, Si., leaseu to plaintiff a
fishponu containing an aiea of 26 hectaies situateu in Polo, Bulacan anu
foiming pait of a biggei paicel of lanu. The lessois aie co-owneis in
equal shaies of the leaseu piopeity.
In the meantime, Tomas ue Castio uieu. Latei on, plaintiff as lessee anu
uefenuant Aisenio ue Castio, Si. as one of the lessois, agieeu to set asiue
anu annul the contiact of lease anu foi this puipose an agieement was
signeu by them, Exhibit A as signeu by plaintiff anu uefenuant shows
Ait 49S of the NCC allows the alienation of the co-ownei of his pait in
the co-owneiship. The effect of such alienation oi moitgage shall be
limiteu to the poition which may be allotteu to him in the uivision upon
the teimination of the co-owneiship In shoit, a co-ownei can entei into
a contiact of lease insofai as to his inteiest. Theiefoie, he can also
cancel such lease without the consent fiom the othei co-ownei.
21
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
that Felisa Ciuz vua. Be Castio, wiuow of Tomas ue Castio, was intenueu
to be maue a paity theieof in hei capacity as iepiesentative of the heiis
of Tomas ue Castio.
Felisa Ciuz vua. Be Castio iefuseu to sign. Befenuant uiu not pay
P2,Suu.uu which he shoulu have paiu on Becembei foi payment was
made by plaintiffs counsel on January 7, 1957 but to no avail, hence the
piesent action.
Theie was conflicting contentions between the paities as to who
between them woulu attenu to secuiing the signatuie of Nis. Felisa Ciuz
vua. ue Castio to the agieement of cancellation of the lease with
iesponuent Atienza.
R#(3[+$ 7; K"E':+)"
3"/5 ),( )*B?
9:5:$( 3LY( 34
Lot 8u2 of the Cauastial suivey of Rosaiio, coveieu by 0CT R0-272u
(N.A.), was oiiginally owneu by the late spouses Rosenuo Peiez anu
Foitunata Beinal, who weie suiviveu by theii chiluien namely, Ciispina
Peiez, Loienzo Peiez anu Ricaiuo Peiez. Ricaiuo Peiez is also now ueau.
0n 28 0ctobei 19S1, Ciispina P. vua. ue Aquitania solu hei iight anu
paiticipation in Lot 8u2 consisting of 1S poition with an aiea of 64u
squaie meteis to Leonoia Estoque. 0n 29 0ctobei 19S1, Loienzo Peiez,
Ciispina Peiez anu Emilia P. Posauas, wiuow of hei ueceaseu husbanu,
Ricaiuo Peiez, foi heiself anu in behalf of hei minoi chiluien,
uumeisinuo, Raquel, Emilio anu Ricaiuo, }i., executeu a ueeu of
extiajuuicial settlement wheiein Loienzo Peiez, Emilia P. Posauas anu
hei minoi chiluien assigneu all theii iight, inteiest anu paiticipation in
Lot 8u2 to Ciispina Peiez. 0n Su Becembei 19S9, Ciispina Peiez anu hei
chiluien, Rosita Aquitania Belmonte, Remeuios Aquitania Nisa, Nanuel
Aquitania, Seigio Aquitania anu Auioia Aquitania solu to Elena Pajimula
(anu Ciiiaco Pajimula), the iemaining 2S westein poition of Lot 8u2
with an aiea of 9S8 squaie meteis.
Leonoia Estoque baseu hei complaint foi legal ieuemption on a claim
that she is a co-ownei of lot 8u2, foi having puichaseu 1S poition
theieof, containing an aiea of 64u squaie meteis as eviuenceu by a ueeu
of sale, which was executeu on 28 0ctobei 19S1 by Ciispina Peiez ue
Aquitania, one of the co-owneis, in hei favoi.
The lowei couit helu that the ueeus of sale show that the lot acquiieu by
Estoque was uiffeient fiom that of the Pajimula; hence they nevei
became co-owneis, anu the allegeu iight of legal ieuemption was not
piopei. Aiticle 162u, which piovides that A co-ownei of a thing may
exeicise the iight of ieuemption in case the shaies of all the othei co-
owneis oi of any of them, aie solu to a thiiu peison. If the piice of the
alienation is giossly excessive the ieuemptionei shall pay only a
ieasonable one. Shoulu two oi moie co-owneis uesiie to exeicise the
iight of ieuemption, they may only uo so in piopoition to the shaie they
may respectively have in the thing owned in common, does not apply.
4'7$5#'?'$0 !5$0'( 7; 23#"03
C:0:2<:= >F( )*B?
9:5:$( 3LY( 34
The case hau its oiigin in the Nunicipal Couit of Bacolou City, when the
Biveisifieu Cieuit Coipoiation fileu an action to compel the spouses
Felipe Rosauo anu Luz }ayme Rosauo to vacate anu iestoie possession of
a paicel of lanu in the City of Bacolou (Lot 62-B of Subuivision plan LRC-
Psu-SS82S) that foims pait of Lot No. 62 of the Bacolou Cauastie, anu is
coveieu by Tiansfei Ceitificate of Title No. 27u8S in the name of
plaintiff. After answer, claiming that the lot was defendants conjugal
piopeity, the Nunicipal Couit oiueieu uefenuants to suiienuei anu
Since the shaie of the wife, Luz }ayme, was at no time physically
ueteimineu, it cannot be valiuly claimeu that the house constiucteu by
hei husbanu was built on lanu belonging to hei, anu Aiticle 1S8 of the
Civil Coue can not apply. Ceitainly, on hei 11S iueal oi abstiact
unuiviueu shaie, no house coulu be eiecteu. Necessaiily, the claim of
conversion of the wifes share from paraphernal to conjugal in character
as a iesult of the constiuction must be iejecteu foi lack of factual oi legal
basis.
22
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
vacate the lanu in litigation; to pay P1uu.uu a month fiom the filing of
the complaint up to the actual vacating of the piemises; to pay PSuu.uu
attorneys fees and costs.
KVC 7; !M
3"E: >,( )*?A
R":==:=1( 34
Aftei the ueath of hei husbanu, Rosa moitgageu the entiie piopeity to
PNB. The title to this piopeity was still unuei pioceeuings but was
subsequently awaiueu to the spouses a yeai aftei the moitgage. The
moitgage to PNB, howevei, was not annotateu. Neanwhile, she
uefaulteu with hei obligation to Nanila Tiauing, anu hei shaie was solu
at a public auction.
After husbands death, the property is supposed to be under co-
owneiship of Rosa anu chiluien. She is entitleu theiefoie to only half. By
heiself alone, she cant mortgage the whole property.
8+6#$( O'$9 !3603:'6'+: 7; J+0B$ !":@3#
!N=7/ >'( )*?)
;:=E.EH:J( 34
Petitionei fileu foi the collection of assessment anu insuiance piemiums
against piivate iesponuent. The lattei avei that eveiy puihcasei of a
conuo unit, even if not yet fully paiu, is a holuei of sepaiate inteiest anu
is automatically a shaieholuei.
Section S of the Conuominium Act expiessly pioviues that the
shaieholuing in the Conuominium Coipoiation will be conveyeu only in
a piopei case. Not eveiy puichasei of a conuominium unit is a
shaieholuei of the conuominium coipoiation. The Conuominium Act
leaves to the Nastei Beeu the ueteimination of when the shaieholuing
will be tiansfeiieu to the puichasei of a unit, as cleaily pioviueu in the
ueeu in this case. 0wneiship of a unit, theiefoie, is a conuition ,+&) 31"
&-& to being a shaieholuei in the conuominium coipoiation By
necessaiy implication, the "sepaiate inteiest" in a conuominium, which
entitles the holuei to become automatically a shaie holuei in the
conuominium coipoiation, as pioviueu in Section 2 of the Conuominium
Act, can be no othei than owneiship of a unit. The piivate iesponuents,
consequently, who have not fully paiu the puichase piice of theii units
anu aie not owneis of theii units noi membeis oi shaieholueis of the
petitionei conuominium coipoiation.
!"@'()$ 7; 0$ \"<"6
3"E: ?( >AAF
D.=N718-1=./:$( 34
Fabian inheiiteu fiom his uau 2 paicels of lanu. F uieu inteste in 1919,
suiviveu by 4 sons, }, Z, Fi, anu N. After Fs death, J occupied and
cultivateu the piopeity until his ueath in 19Su.
Petitioneis (heiis of othei biotheis) now fileu foi paitition.
The auveise possession by }ulian anu his successois-in-inteiest as
exclusive ownei of the piopeity having entaileu a peiiou of about 67
yeais at the time of the filing of the case at bai, owneiship by
piesciiption hau vesteu in them.
2":3# 7; 4'5; I? G"60#
X1O:2<:= )*( )*)?
-./01/2( 34
Ramos was a holuei of a possession infoimation title which he latei
conveyeu to Romeio. Romeio applieu foi the iegistiation of the lanu.
The occupancy of a $"*( of the lanu with an instiument giving coloi of
title is sufficient to give title to the )&(+*) tiact of lanu. The geneial iule
is that the possession anu cultivation of a poition of a tiact of lanu unuei
a claim of owneiship of all is a constiuctive possession of all, IF the
iemainuei is not in the auveise possession of anothei. Possession in the
eyes of the law uoes not mean that a man has to have his feet on eveiy
squaie metei of giounu befoie it can be saiu that he is in possession.
4'5$,(35 7; !M
3"E: >*( )*?F
!I"7E1( 34
A lanu was occupieu by 4u tenants uuiing the Spanish iegime. They
weie gianteu homesteau applications. Biuno uieu uuiing the Spanish
iegime anu was survived by 7 children. Brunos nephew obtained a tax
ueclaiation foi the lanu. }uuge issueu a ueciee foi iegistiation of lanu in
name of Brunos heirs.
The iule on constiuctive possession uoes not apply when the majoi
poition of the uisputeu piopeity has been in the auveise possession of
homesteaueis anu theii heiis. It is still pait of the public uomain until
the patents aie issueu.
b"#')"B 7; 23[+$
C:0:2<:= '( )*+*
[2N:=7./( 34
Emiliana Ambiosio was issueu a homesteau patent. A TCT was
subsequently issueu. It is piohibiteu to sell oi encumbei a lanu obtaineu
thiough homesteau S yeais fiom its issuance. K enteieu into a contiact
A peison is ueemeu a possessoi in BF when he knows that theie is a flaw
in his title oi in the mannei of acquisition by which it is invaliuateu.
uioss anu inexcusable ignoiance of the law may not be the basis of goou
2S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
loan wheiein she moitgageu the impiovement on the lanus as secuiity.
2
nu
agieement: veibal wheieby EA conveyeu to K the possession of the
lanu.
faith, but possible, excusable ignoiance may be such basis. Kasilag is not
conveisant with the laws because he is not a lawyei. It can be concluueu
therefore that Kasilags ignorance of Sec 116 is excusable and may be a
basis of goou faith.
C"6,3 R#@"^3) .')'@'63 7; K$($5#36
;:<=".=5 B( )*A'
T1==:$( 34
To secuie payment of loan, Reyes moitgageu to the bank seveial pieces
of piopeity anu pleugeu pait of his piopeity. The lattei goous weie
ueliveieu to the uepositoiy. uaicia obtaineu a favoiable juugment
against Reyes property. uaicia iequesteu the sheiiff to seiz the goous
fiom the waiehouse.
Theie was a peifect contiact of pleuge anu the uepositaiy was placeu in
the possession of the goous aftei the symbolic tiansfei by means of
ueliveiy to him of the keys to the waiehouse wheie the goous weie kept.
The sheiiff, then, coulu not have legally levieu upon the piopeity.
P","#"$( 7; P","#"$(
Q:N%:2<:= +A( >AAF
G.E#.E7<.E( 34

Children were invited by the parents to occupy the latters 2 lots.
0nfoitunately, an uniesolveu conflict teiminateu this situation. 0ut of
pique, the paients askeu them to vacate the piemises. Thus, the chiluien
lost theii iight to iemain on the piopeity. They have the iight, howevei,
to be inuemnifieu foi the useful impiovements that they constiucteu
theieon in goou faith anu with the consent of the paients. In shoit,
Aiticle 448 of the Civil Coue applies.
The poition iequiiing Spouses vicente anu Rosaiio Nacasaet to
ieimbuise one half of the value of the useful impiovements, amounting
to P47S,uuu, anu the iight of Spouses Ismael anu Rosita Nacasaet to
iemove those impiovements (if the foimei iefuses to ieimbuise) is
ueleteu. The case is iemanueu to the couit of oiigin foi fuithei
pioceeuings to ueteimine the facts essential to the piopei application of
Aiticles 448 anu S46 of the Civil Coue.
!+"=,36B 7; C$6$0',(3
-.=0K )+( )*)?
;7$K:=( 34
2 ioaus :0ne of these ioaus is iefeiieu to in the pioceeuings as the
Nanca-victoiias ioau anu the othei as the Bacuman- Toieno ioau

The allegations in the complaint with iespect to the Nanca-victoiias
ioau aie that the appellees, Euuaiuo Cuaycong, Lino Cuaycong, anu
Eulalio Boloi, aie the owneis of a gioup of hacienuas situateu between
the southein bounuaiy of the Bacienua Toieno anu the baiiio of Nanca

That moie than twenty yeais the appellees anu theii pieuecessois in
inteiest have maue use of the Nanca- victoiias ioau, which ciosses the
Bacienua Toieno, openly, publicly, anu continiously, with the knowleuge
of the owneis of the saiu hacienua

That on the fifteenth uay of Novembei, 1912, the uefenuants closeu the
ioau in question

Befenuants in theii answei aveiieu that the ioau ciossing the Bacienua
Toieno, ovei which plaintiffs claim the iight of passage, is the piivate
piopeity of uefenuants

That they have not iefuseu plaintiffs peimission to pass ovei this ioau
but have iequiieu them to pay toll foi the piivilege of uoing so

The couit helu that it was a public highway ovei which the public hau
acquiieu a iight of use by immemoiial piesciiption

It was only in 1911-191S that toll was being collecteu; appaiently uone
to iaise funus foi its iepaii
If ownei of a tiact of lanu, to accommouate the public, peimits them to
cioss his piopeity, it is not his intention to uivest himself of owneiship
oi to establish an easement. Such possession is not affecteu by acts of
possessoiy chaiactei which aie meiely toleiateu.
24
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
M#(+0'))3 7; K//!
QN:%:2<:= >>( )*'B
!I"7E1( 34
Nitia bought a lot fiom PBBC in 1961. The saiu lot gas been occupieu by
Astuuillo uninteiiupteuly since 19S7. PBBC ignoieu hei iequests foi the
cancellation of the title in favoi of Nitia anu foi the iesale to hei.
As a squattei, she has no possessoiy iights ovei the uisputeu lot. The
States solicitude from the destitutes and the have-nots uoes not mean
that it shoulu toleiate usuipations pf piopeity, public oi piivate.
K$5"6 7; !.L
W0%1<:= )+( )*?+
-:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34
}ose Evasco owns an uniegisteieu lanu. Be executeu an E} paitition of it
among his S heiis, incl. Alejanuio. Be alloweu anu toleiateu his niece
Encarnacion to erect a house on a portion of his lot. In 72, Alejandro
solu the lot. Encainacion iefuseu to vacate.
Possession by toleiance is lawful, but this becomes illegal when, upon
uemanu to vacate by the ownei, the possessoi iefuses to comply with
such uemanu. A possessoi by meie toleiance is necessaiily bounu by an
implieu piomise to vacate upon uemanu.
e+ 7; /365"03
!"#"$% >)( )*?A
!I"7E1( 34
Naicelo Steel Coip solu 42 metiic tons of sciap engine blocks to
Refueizo, an allegeu swinulei. The lattei then solu them to the Yu
spouses. The puichase was in uF. Couit then issueu waiiant foi seizuie
of the goous.
The acquiiei anu possessoi in goou faith of a chattel oi movable
piopeity is entitleu to be iespecteu anu piotecteu in his possession as if
he weie the tiue ownei, until a competent couit iules otheiwise. Such
possession in goou faith is equivalent to title anu eveiy possessoi has a
iight to be iespecteu in his possession (Aits SS9 anu SS9)
!350$53 7; !"<5")
3"/5 >,( )*?+
!<.H8Q.E%1$( 34
Felipa anu hei chiluien fileu a complaint that a poition of the lanu they
inheiiteu fiom husbanu was illegally possesseu by victoiia et al.
uoou faith ceases when they weie seiveu with summons to answei the
complaint. As possessois in bau faith fiom the seivice of the summons,
they shall ieimbuise the fiuits ieceiveu.
."<'$ 7; \+('$55$H]4"7'0
C:0:2<:= )>( )*F,
WJ.:%.( 34
Petitionei }osefa is the usufiuctuaiy of the income of ceitain houses in
Binonuo anu 0ngpin, unuei the ninth clause of the will of ueceaseu
Rosaiio.
A usufiuctuaiy of the ients, as a coiollaiy to the iight to all ients, to
choose the tenant anu to fix the amount of the ient, necessaiily has the
iight to choose himself as the tenant, pioviueu that the obligations he
has assumeu towaius the ownei of the piopeity aie fulfilleu.
C3"50 3? M##$##:$6( M@@$")# 3? U":<3"6B" 0$) 8+5 7; 8":"5
P'6'6B !3;A L6,;
;:<=".=5 >'( )*')
]./H7O.=( 34
As the mining claims anu the mill of Samai aie locateu inlanu anu at a
gieat uistance fiom the loauing ptpiei site, it ueviueu to constiuct a
giavel ioau; Samai then fileu with Buieau of Lanus & of Foiestiy misc.
lease appn for a road right of way; given temporary permit; however,
execution of the lease contiacts have been helu in abeyance by CTA
It is well settleu that a ieal tax, being a buiuen upon the capital, shoulu
be paiu by the L0 anu not by a usufiuctuaiy.
C")+5"6 7; V"7"553
Q:N%:2<:= +A( )*''
-"E1J8G./2.( 34
Spouses Bomingo Paiaiso anu Fiuela Q. Paiaiso weie the owneis of a
iesiuential lot of aiounu 48u squaie meteis. 0n oi about Febiuaiy 2,
1964, the Paraisos executed an agreement entitled BARTER whereby
as party of the first part they agreed to barter and exchange with
spouses Avelino anu Benilua Baluian theii iesiuential lot with the
latters unirrigated riceland, of approximately 223 square meters
without any peimanent impiovements. 0n Nay 6, 197S Antonio
0benuencio fileu a complaint to iecovei the above-mentioneu
iesiuential lot fiom Avelino Baluian claiming that he is the iightful
ownei of saiu iesiuential lot having acquiieu the same fiom his mothei,
Nativiuau Paiaiso 0beuencio, anu that he neeueu the piopeity foi
puiposes of constiucting his house theieon inasmuch as he hau taken
iesiuence in his native town, Saiiat. 0beuencio accoiuingly piayeu that
he be ueclaieu ownei of the iesiuential lot anu that uefenuant Baluian
be oiueieu to vacate the same foifeiting his (0beuencio) favoi the
impiovements uefenuant Baluian hau built in bau faith. At the pie-tiial,
the paities agieeu to submit the case foi uecision on the basis of theii
stipulation of facts. It was likewise aumitteu that the afoiementioneu
iesiuential lot was uonateu on 0ctobei 4, 1974 by Nativiuau 0beuencio
to hei son Antonio 0beuencio, anu that since the execution of the
agieement of Febiuaiy 2, 1964 Avelino Baluian was in possession of the
The use of the term barter in describing the agreement of February 2,
1964, is not contiolling. The stipulations in saiu uocument aie cleai
enough to inuicate that theie was no intention at all on the pait of the
signatoiies theieto to convey the owneiship of theii iespective
piopeities; all that was intenueu, anu it was so pioviueu in the
agieement, was to tiansfei the mateiial possession theieof. With the
mateiial ion being the only one tiansfeiieu, all that the paities acquiieu
was the iight of usufiuct which in essence is the iight to enjoy the
piopeity of anothei. A iesolutoiy conuition is one which extinguishes
rights and obligations already existing. The right of material
possession granted in the agreement of February 2, 1964, ends if and
when any of the chiluien of Nativiuau Paiaiso, 0beuencio woulu iesiue
in the municipality anu builu his house on the piopeity. Inasmuch as the
conuition opposeu is not uepenuent solely on the will of one of the
paities to the contiact the spouses Paiaiso but is pait uepenuent on the
will of thiiu peisons, Nativiuau 0beuencio anu any of hei chiluien, the
same is valiu. the plaintiff oi iesponuent 0beuencio coulu not uemanu
foi the iecoveiy of possession of the iesiuential lot in question, not until
he acquiieu that iight fiom his mothei, Nativiuau 0beuencio, anu which
he uiu acquiie when his mothei uonateu to him the iesiuential lot on
October 4, 1974. In view of the ruling that the barter agreement of
2S
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
iesiuential lot, paiu the taxes of the piopeity, anu constiucteu a house
theieon with an value of P2Su.uu. 0n Novembei 8, 197S, the tiial }uuge
Ricaiuo Y. Navaiio ienueieu a uecision.
Febiuaiy 2, 1964, uiu not tiansfei the owneiship of the iespective
piopeities mentioneu theiein, it follows that petitionei Baluian iemains
the ownei of the uniiiigateu iicelanu anu is now entitleu to its
Possession. With the happening of the iesolutoiy conuition pioviueu foi
in the agieement, the iight of usufiuct of the paities is extinguisheu anu
each is entitleu to a ietuin of his piopeity.
V/M 7; !M
!N=7/ )+( >AA,
D.=N71( 34
Pioc. 481 set asiue a poition of lanu in QC owneu by NBA as ieseiveu
piopeity foi the NuC.

Pioc. 167u iemoveu a 7-hectaie poition fiom the NuC anu gave NSBF
usufiuctuaiy iights ovei this 7has.

NSBF occupieu the lanu, but exceeueu fiom the 7 has. Then, NSBF
leaseu a poition of the aiea to BuC
A usufiuct may be constituteu foi a specifieu teim anu unuei such
conuitions as the paities may ueem convenient subject to the legal
piovision on usufiuct; a usufiuctuaiy may lease the object helu in
usufiuct.

A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owners interests a usufiuct
gives a iight to enjoy the piopeity of anothei with the obligation of
pieseiving its foim anu substance, unless the title constituting it oi the
law otheiwise pioviues
V35(> V$B53# 7; /'0")B3
W0%1<:= +)( )*+B
9:0%1( 34
Acioss its piopeities, NNSC constiucteu a ioau connecting the mill site
with the piovincial highwat. NNSC maue the ioau accessible to the
public, a toll fee being chaige in case of motoi vehicles, fiee foi
peuestiians. B owns a tuba saloon in an aujoining hacienua, anu
likeothei people, he useu to pass thiough connecting ioau. Because
NNSCs workers usually got drunk from Hs saloon, NNSC sought to
enjoin B fiom using the ioau.
The ioau is cleaily a seivituue voluntaiily constituteu in favoi of the
community unuei Ait. SS1. Baving been uevoteu by NNSC to the use of
the public in geneial, the ioau is chaigeu with public inteiest. Anu while
so uevoteu. NNSC may not establish uisciiminatoiy exceptions against
any piivate peisons.
P+6','@")'(= 3? 4+:"6B"# 7; C'#>3@ 3? J"53
-.=0K >*( )*)B
T1==:$( 34
The municipality applieu foi iegistiation of paicels of lanu claiming that
theie weie owneis since time immemoiial. Bishop opposeu saying that
the chuich hau been in possession also since time immemoiial
Since the constiuction of the chuich, theie hau been a siue uooi in the
wall thiough which the woishippeis attenuing mass entei anu leave,
passing anu enteiing the lanu in question. As this use of the lanu has
been continuous, it is eviuent that the chuich has acquiieu a iight to
such use by piesciiption, in view of the time that has elapseu since the
chuich was built anu ueuicateu to ieligious woiship, uuiing which
peiiou the Nunicipality has not piohibiteu the passage ovei the lanu by
peisons who attenu seivices helu by the chuich.
M:35 7; .)35$6('63
W0%1<:= ))( )*F+
L101<1( 34
Naiia Floientino owneu a house anu camaiin. The house hau on the
noith siue S wiunows on the uppei stoiy anu a 4
th
on the giounu fli.
Thiough these winuows, the house ieceives light anu aii fiom the lot
wheie the camaiin stanus. Naiia maue a will uevising the house anu lot
to uabiiel anu }ose, then the camaiin to Na. Encainacion. NE solu the lot
anu waiehouse to Amoi. A uestiotyeu the waiehouse anu built a 2-
stoiey house
Easement of light anu view go togethei. Acquisition of easements is by
title oi by piesciiption. The visible anu peimanent sign of an easement
is the title that chaiacteiizes its existence. Existence of the appaient sign
hau the same effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of the light
anu view upon ueath of oiiginal ownei.
236[+'))3 7; 23,3

Plaintiffs allegeu that they have been in the continuous anu
uninteiiupteu use of a ioau oi passage way which tiaveiseu the lanu of
the uefenuants anu theii pieuecessois in inteiest, in going to Igualuau
Stieet anu the maiket place of Naga City, fiom theii iesiuential lanu anu
back, foi moie than 2u yeais. Plaintiffs fuithei claim that uefenuants
have long iecognizeu anu iespecteu the piivate legal easement of ioau
iight of way of the foimei. 0n Nay 12, 19SS, the uefenuants anu theii
men constiucteu a chapel in the miuule of the saiu iight of way which,
An easement of iight of way though it may be appaient is, neveitheless,
uiscontinuous oi inteimittent anu, theiefoie, cannot be acquiieu
thiough piesciiption, but only by viitue of a title. 0nuei the New
Civil Coue, easements may be continuous uiscontinuous (inteimittent),
appaient oi non-appaient, uiscontinuous being those useu at moie oi
less long inteivals anu which uepenu upon acts of man (Aiticles 61S).
Continuous anu appaient easements aie acquiieu eithei, by title oi
piesciiption, continuous non-appaient easements anu uiscontinuous
26
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
accoiuingly has impeueu, obstiucteu anu uistuibeu the continuous
exeicise of the iights of the
plaintiffs ovei saiu iight of way. 0n }uly 1u, 19S4 uefenuants planteu
woouen posts, fenceu with baibeu wiie anu closeu heimitically the ioau
passage way and their right of way against the plaintiffs protests and
opposition. This pieventeu them fiom going to oi coming fiom theii
homes to Igualuau Stieet anu the public maiket of the City of Naga.
ones whethei appaient oi not, may be acquiieu only by viitue of a title
(Aiticles 62u anu 622)
0nuei the piovisions of the Civil Coue, paiticulaily the aiticles theieof
afoieciteu, it woulu theiefoie appeai that the easement of iight of way
may not be acquiieu thiough piesciiption. Even Aiticle 19S9 of the 0lu
Civil Coue pioviuing foi piesciiption of owneiship anu othei ieal iights
in ieal piopeity, excluues theiefiom the exception establisheu by Aiticle
SS9, iefeiiing to uiscontinuous easements, such as, easement of iight of
way.
R6,"56",'36 7; !M
P"5,> __A _dd_
Petitionei Tomas Encainacion anu piivate iesponuent Beiis of the
late Aniceta Nagsino viuua ue Sagun aie the owneis of two aujacent
estates situateu in Buco, Talisay, Batangas. K$('('36$5 396# (>$
03:'6"6( $#("($ 9>')$ 5$#@360$6( 396# (>$ #$57'$6( $#("($ 9>',>
#("60# <$(9$$6 (>$ 03:'6"6( $#("($ "60 (>$ 6"('36") 53"0;
When the seivient estate was not yet encloseu with a conciete fence,
peisons going to the national highway just ciosseu the seivient estate at
no paiticulai point. Bowevei, in 196u when piivate iesponuents
constiucteu a fence aiounu the seivient estate, a ioaupath measuiing 2S
meteis long anu about a metei wiue was constituteu to pioviue access
to the highway. 0ne- half metei wiuth of the path was taken fiom the
seivient estate anu the othei one-half metei poition was taken fiom
anothei lot owneu by Nameito Nagsino. No compensation was askeu
anu none was given foi the poitions constituting the pathway.
It was also about that time that petitionei staiteu his plant nuiseiy
business on his lanu wheie he also hau his aboue. Be woulu use saiu
pathway as passage to the highway foi his family anu foi his customeis.
Petitionei's plant nuiseiy business thiough sheei haiu woik flouiisheu
anu with that, it became moie anu moie uifficult foi petitionei to haul
the plants anu gaiuen soil to anu fiom the nuiseiy anu the highway with
the use of pushcaits. In }anuaiy, 1984, petitionei was able to buy an
ownei-type jeep which he coulu use foi tianspoiting his plants.
Bowevei, that jeep coulu not pass thiough the ioaupath anu so he
appioacheu the seivient estate owneis anu iequesteu that they sell to
him one anu one-half (1 12) meteis of theii piopeity to be auueu to the
existing pathway so as to allow passage foi his jeepney. The iequest was
tuineu uown by the two wiuows anu fuithei
attempts at negotiation pioveu futile.
Petitionei then instituteu an action befoie the Regional Tiial Couit of
Batangas, to seek the issuance of a wiit of easement of a iight of way
ovei an auuitional wiuth of at least two (2) meteis ovei the Be Saguns'
4uS-squaie-metei paicel of lanu. Buiing the tiial, the attention of the
lowei couitwas calleu to the existence of anothei exit to the highway,
only eighty (8u) meteis away fiom the uominant estate, hence,
uismissing petitionei's complaint.
The Couit finus that petitionei has sufficiently establisheu his claim foi
an auuitional easement of iight of way, holuing that wheie a piivate
piopeity has no access to a public ioau, it has the iight of easement ovei
aujacent seivient estates as a mattei of law.
Aiticle 6S1 of the Civil Coue pioviues that "(t)he wiuth of the easement
of iight of way shall be that which is sufficient foi the neeus of the
uominant estate, anu may accoiuingly be changeu fiom time to time."
This is taken to mean that unuei the law, it is the neeus of the uominant
piopeity which ultimately ueteimine the wiuth of the passage. Anu
these neeus may vaiy fiom time to time.
When petitionei staiteu out as a plant nuiseiy opeiatoi, he anu his
family coulu easily make uo with a few pushcaits to tow the plants to the
national highway. But the business giew anu with it the neeu foi the use
of mouein means of conveyance oi tianspoit. Nanual hauling of plants
anu gaiuen soil anu use of pushcaits have become extiemely
cumbeisome anu physically taxing. To foice petitionei to leave his
jeepney in the highway, exposeu to the elements anu to the iisk of theft
simply because it coulu not pass
thiough the impioviseu pathway, is sheei pigheaueuness on the pait of
the seivient estate anu can only be countei-piouuctive foi all the people
conceineu. Petitionei shoulu not be uenieu a passageway wiue enough
to accommouate his jeepney since that is a ieasonable anu necessaiy
aspect of the plant nuiseiy business.

27
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
O")0$55":" 7; V35(> V$B53#
C:0:2<:= )?( )*>,
67//.21=( 34
v. et al executeu a contiact with Niguel 0soiio wheie 0 afieeu to install
a sugai cential of minimum capacity of Suu tons foi giinuing anu milling
a sugai cane giown by v. et al who in tuin bounu themselves to fuinish
the cential all cane they might piouuce. A iailioau was constiucteu on v
et als land to transport the sugarcane. But Vs harvest fell short.
1. In a contiact establishing an easement of way in favoi of a sugai
company foi the constiuction of a iailioau foi the tianspoitation of
sugai cane fiom the seivient estates to the mill, it is contiaiy to the
natuie of the contiact to pietenu that only sugai cane giown in the
seivient estates can be tianspoiteu on saiu iailioau, because it is a well-
settleu iule that things seive theii ownei by ieason of owneiship anu
not by easement. That an easement being establisheu in favoi of the
sugai company, the owneis of the seivient estates cannot limit its use to
the tianspoitation of theii cane, theie being no expiess stipulation to
that effect.
2. An easement of way is not moie buiuensome by causing to pass
hereon wagons carrying goods pertaining to persons who arent wners
of the seivient estates anu at all time the peison entitleu o the easement
may please, foi in such case the easement ontinues to be the same.

I6B#'",3 7; I6B#'",3 Bacienua Espeianza Teicea ue Paie was uissolveu anu paititioneu
among the 0ngsiaco heiis (49) anu the Santos heiis (S9).

0 thiough notaiial ueeu stateu that S hau been constiucting uikes
obstiucting the natuial flow of watei to the piejuuice of the co-owneis.
The uikes aie continuous easements since it uoes uepenu upon the act of
man, but is uue to giavity. Being such, it is subject to the extinction to
the non-usei (2u yeais in the 0lu Coue anu 1u yeais in the New Coue).
Since, it was aumitteuly built in 19S7 oi 19S8, the action is baiieu by
piesciiption
*+':$6 7; !M
-.5 >*( )**B
L://1$7//1( 34
The classic battle of an avocauo tiee anu a saiisaii stoie of stiong
mateiials.
Yolandas property behind A&Ss. at first, Y uses As property to get to
the municipal ioau. Latei on, she was baiieu. Eventually, S pioviueu hei
with a passageway. Unfortunately, Ss property is a sari-saii stoie long
stoiy shoit, "&4 5"6" &4 ("("5"7+& &+%"&4 8""& 9&"7,:$"*" #"7"*"(+&4
," #1&+/+$"2 *-"8; Bence, she filed an action for right of way through As
piopeity. The only obstiuction in the pioposeu RoW is an avocauo tiee.
Wheie the easement may be establisheu on any of the seveial tenements
suiiounuing the uominant estate, the one wheie the way is shoitest anu
will cause the least uamage shoulu be chosen but if these two
circumstances dont concur in a single interest, the way which will cause
least uamage shoulu be useu, even if it will not be shoitest.
4"7'0]!>"6 7; !M
;:<=".=5 >B( )**'
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
Pacita B-C owns a 6SSsw.m. lot locateu in San Feinanuo, Pampanga
ehich is almost completely suiiounueu by othei immovables anu cut off
fiom the highway:
N, W: business establishments
S: Pinedas land
ENE: Phil. Rabbit lies between chan anu highway
She used to have a passageway from Pinedas but she fenced it off.
Baviu-Chan not entitled to a RoW through PRs property.
G" O'#(" 7; !M
Q:N%:2<:= ,( )**'
L://1$7//1( 34
Nangyan Roau is the bounuaiy between the La vista Subuivision on one
siue anu Ateneo anu Naiyknoll (Niiiam) on the othei. The ioau extenus
to the entiance gate of Loyola uianu villas. The aiea compiising the 1S-
metei wiue ioauway was oiiginally pait of a vast tiact of lanu owneu by
the Tuasons. The Tuasons solu to Philippine Builuing Coipoiation a
poition of theii lanuholuings. The Philippine Builuing Coipoiation
tiansfeiieu, with the consent of the Tuasons, the subject paicel of lanu
A legal easement is that which is constituteu by law foi public use anu
inteiest. A voluntaiy easement is constituteu simply by will oi
agieement of the paities.
A voluntaiy easement of iight of way coulu be extinguisheu only by
mutual agieement oi by ienunciation of the ownei of the uominant
estate. The opening of an auequate outlet to a highway can extinguish
28
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
to Ateneo. The Tuasons uevelopeu a pait of the estate aujoining the
poition solu to Philippine Builuing Coipoiation into La vista
Subuivision.
La vista seeks the issuance of a wiit of injunction to finally enjoin
piivate iesponuents Soliu Bomes, Inc., uevelopeis of Loyola uianu villas
Subdivision, the latters predecessor-in- inteiest, Ateneo, anu the
iesiuents of the saiu subuivision fiom enjoying an easement of iight-of-
way ovei Nangyan Roau.
La Vista contends that mere convenience for the dominant estate is not
enough to seive as its (the easement of iight-of-way) basis. To justify the
imposition of this seivituue, theie must be a ieal, not a fictitious oi
artificial, necessity for it
only legal oi compulsoiy easements, not voluntaiy easements.
O0"; 0$ C")("H"5 7; !M
3"E: >'( )**,
912:=1( 34
Panganibans property was surrounded by Baltazars in front, and
Calimons and Legazpis on the left and right, respectively. It was
Baltazars property which fronts the national road. Panganiban sought
the iight of way through Baltazars. It was discovered that he was ed
access through Legazpi and Calimons property when Baltazar closed his
piopeity.
Requisites that has to be complieu with befoie the giant of a compulsoiy
easement of iight of way
1. The piopeity is suiiounueu by estate of otheis anu theie is no
auequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be establisheu at the point least piejuuicial to the seivient
estate anu insofai as consistent with this iule, wheie the uistance
fiom the uominant estate to a public highway may be the shoitest
S. Theie must be payment of the piopei inuemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
An easement of iight of way can be establisheu thiough continueu use.
This uoctiine was enunciateu in <-&31+22- = <-/- which helu that an
easement of iight of way is uiscontinuous in natuie since the uominant
estate cannot be continually ciossing the seivient estate but can uo so
only at inteivals.
8@#; 4$)" !5+H 7; 2":'#,")
;:<=".=5 F( >AA,
DK7018X.J.=71( 34
The subject mattei of this case is a 1.1um wiue by 12.6m long stiip of
lnu owneu by Ramiscal which is being useu by petitioneis as theii
pathway to anu fiom 19
th
Ave., the neaiest public highway fiom theii
piopeity. Petitioneis hau encloseu the same with a gate, fence anu ioof.
An easement oi seivituue is a ieal iight constituteu on the coipoieal
immovable piopeity f anothei, by viitue of which the ownei has to
iefiain fiom uoing, oi must allow someone to uo, something in his
piopeity, foi the benefit of anothei thing oi peison. In CAB, petitioneis
faileu to show by competent eviuence that a voluntaiy easement was
maue.
.)353 7; G)$6"03 Floio was the ownei of a subuivision. Beie comes Llenauo who bought
the aujoining subuivision lot, which was foimeily Emmanuel Bomes. A
cieek sepaiates the piopeity of Llenauo fiom Floio. 0n the west siue of
Llenados property was a rice land. On the subdivision plan of Llenados
piopeity, theie was a plan to constiuct an access ioau to NcAithui
Bighway but no constiuction was maue. With the two subuivisions, it
was Floros which only had an access road. Floro ed usage of his access
ioau penuing negotiations but latei on closeu the piopeity.
The use of the ioau lots by the Llenauos uuiing the month of Naich was
by meie toleiance of Floio penuing the negotiation of the teims &
conuitions of the iight of way. Although such use was in anticipation of
a voluntaiy easement, no such contiact was valiuly enteieu into by
ieason of the failuie of the paities to agiee on its teims & conuitions.
The buiuen of pioving the existence of the pieiequisites to valiuly claim
a compulsoiy iight of way lies on the ownei of the uominant estate.
29
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
G"B"H3 7; !M
-.=0K ,( )**?
G.E#.E7<.E( 34
Catalina was the giantee of the Nonseiiat estate. She hau to leave foi
Canaua to become a peimanent iesiuent theiein anu she appointeu
Espanol to be hei attoiney-in-fact to fix the iequiiements neeueu.
Failing to accomplish what he ought to uo, Catalina appointeu Lagazo as
hei new attoiney-in-fact. The giant was subsequently given anu latei,
the lanu was uonateu to Lagazo. Lagazo then sought to iemove Cabanlit
fiom the piopeity. The lattei claims owneiship ovei the lanu by viitue
of a ueeu of sale executeu in favoi of him by Espanol.
The uonation is simple anu puie. Theie is no showing of any acceptance
fiom Lagazo anu thus, theie has been no peifecteu uonation.
C36#"(3 7; !M
3"/5 +A( )*,F
9:5:$( 3LY( 34
Responuents sought the annulment of the ueeus of uonation on the
ground that it wasnt in compliance with the formalities of a will. The
petitioneis on the othei hanu claim that they aie valiu uonations anu
that they weie not uonations moitis causa.
If theie has been no bauge that it is a uonation moitis causa, it shoulu be
consiueieu as a uonation intei vivos.

\$#(3@" 7; !M
W0%1<:= ,( >AAA
S"7$"2<7E#( 34
Spouses uestopa pieviously issueu a ueeu of uonation moitis cause in
favoi of Neiceues but subsequently, they issueu anothei ueeu, now intei
vivos, still in favoi of Neiceues. Neiceues now seeks the uonateu
property but the Gestopas claimed that she isnt entitled to such, the
uonation being moitis causa.
The existence of an acceptance clause in the ueeu shows that the
uonation is of intei vivos. Theie is no acceptance neeueu when it comes
to uonations moitis causa.
M+#(5'"]P"B"( 7; !M
;:<=".=5 )( >AA>
C: Y:1E 3=4( 34
Comeiciante hau S chiluien. She then bought a iesiuential house anu lot
which she uonateu to hei chiluien. The ueeu containeu an acceptance
anu iiievocability clause. Theieaftei she executeu a ueeu of absolute
sale in favoi of Apolinaiia.
The act of selling the subject piopeity to petitionei heiein cannot be
consiueieu as a valiu act of ievocation of the ueeu of uonation foi the
ieason that a foimal case to ievoke must be fileu in couit.
O'(+B 7; !M
-.=0K >*( )**A
Q.=27:E%1( 34
Romaiico anu Boloies hau a joint account with Bank of Ameiican
National Tiust anu Savings Assn. anu a S0RvIv0RSBIP AuREENENT
wheiein it was agieeu that upon ueath of one of them, the suiviving
spouse woulu own the pioceeus of the account. Romaiico withuiew the
saiu funus anu useu it to pay foi estate tax, anu now wants to acquiie
authority to dispose of other properties of his wifes estate for
ieimbursement of the advance he maue. The oppositoi allegeu that he
is not entitleu to the saiu ieimbuisement as the funus useu, i.e. the funus
of the }oint account, was pait of the conjugal piopeity. The Couit uphelu
the S0RvIv0RSBIP AuREENENT.
N0T A C0NvEYANCE N0RTIS CA0SA = WILL - because the piopeity
conveyeu is not exclusively owneu by B0L0RES

N0T A B0NATI0N INTER vIv0S
a. It woulu take effect aftei ueath of one
b. No conveyance of exclusive piopeity of one spouse to the othei

/$:$0$# 7; !M
W0%4 ?( )***
R1EJ.#.89:5:$( 34
Kausapin aigues that the ueeu of conveyance in favoi of stepuaughtei
Naxima was in English anu that it was not explaineu to hei.
Neie pieponueiance of eviuence is not sufficient to oveithiow a
ceitificate of a notaiy public to the effect that the giantoi executeu a
ceitain uocument anu acknowleugeu the fact of its execution befoie him.

8+:'@"( 7; C"6B"
!"#"$% )+( >AAF
T7E#.( 34
The spouses Placiua Tabo-tabo anu Lauio Sumipat, who aie chiluless,
acquiieu thiee paicels of lanu. Lauio Sumipat, howevei, siieu five
illegitimate chiluien out of an extia-maiital affaii with Peuia Bacola,
namely: heiein uefenuants-appellees Lyuia, Lauiito, Alicia, Alejanuio
anu Liiafe, all suinameu Sumipat.
0n }anuaiy S, 198S, Lauio Sumipat executeu a uocument uenominateu
"BEEB 0F ABS0L0TE TRANSFER ANB0R Q0IT- CLAIN 0vER REAL
PR0PERTIES" (the assaileu uocument) in favoi of uefenuants-appellees
coveiing the thiee paicels of lanu (the piopeities).
A peiusal of the ueeu ieveals that it is actually a giatuitous uisposition of
piopeity a uonation although Lauio Sumipat imposeu upon the
petitioneis the conuition that he anu his wife, Placiua, shall be entitleu to
one-half (12) of all the fiuits oi piouuce of the paicels of lanu foi theii
subsistence anu suppoit.

In this case, the donees acceptance of the donation is not manifested
eithei in the ueeu itself oi in a sepaiate uocument. Bence, the ueeu as an
instiument of uonation is patently voiu.
Su
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
It appeais that on }anuaiy S, 198S when the assaileu uocument was
executeu, Lauio Sumipat was alieauy veiy sick anu beuiiuuen; that
upon uefenuant-appellee Lydias request, their neighbor Benjamin
Riveia lifteu the bouy of Lauio Sumipat wheieupon Lyuia guiueu his
(Lauro Sumipats) hand in affixing his signature on the assailed
uocument which she hau biought; that Lyuia theieaftei left but latei
returned on the same day and requested Lauros unlettered wife Placida
to sign on the assaileu uocument, as she uiu in haste, even without the
lattei getting a iesponsive answei to hei queiy on what it was all about.
After Lauro Sumipats death,his wife Placida, and defendants- appellees
jointly auministeieu the piopeities Su% of the piouuce of which went to
plaintiff-appellant. But as Placidas share in the produce of the
piopeities uwinuleu until she no longei ieceiveu any anu leaining that
the titles to the piopeities in question weie alieauy tiansfeiieumaue in
favoi of the uefenuants-appellees, she fileu a complaint foi ueclaiation
of nullity of titles, contiacts, paitition, iecoveiy of owneiship now the
subject of the piesent appeal.

!")',0"6 7; !$60"6"
;:<=".=5 ,( >AAF
UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34
The instant contioveisy involves a 76u squaie metei paicel of
uniegisteieu lanu locateu in Poblacion, Nangaluan, Pangasinan. The
lanu was foimeily owneu by Sixto Calicuan, who uieu intestate on
Novembei 4, 1941. Be was suiviveu by his wife, Feimina, anu thiee
chiluien, namely, petitionei Soleuau, }ose anu Benigno, all suinameu
Calicuan.
0n August 2S, 1947, Feimina executeu a ueeu of uonation +&()* =+=-,
wheieby she conveyeu the lanu to iesponuent Silveiio Cenuaa, who
immeuiately enteieu into possession of the lanu, built a fence aiounu the
lanu anu constiucteu a two-stoiey iesiuential house theieon sometime
in 1949, wheie he iesiueu until his ueath in 1998.
0n }une 29, 1992, petitionei, thiough hei legal guaiuian uuaualupe
Castillo, fileu a complaint foi Recovery of Ownership, Possession and
Damages against the respondent, alleging that the donation was void;
that iesponuent took auvantage of hei incompetence in acquiiing the
land; and that she merely tolerated respondents possession of the land
as well as the constiuction of his house theieon.

Bonation voiu. Notwithstanuing, we finu that iesponuent has become
the iightful ownei of the lanu by extiaoiuinaiy acquisitive piesciiption.
Piesciiption is anothei moue of acquiiing owneiship anu othei ieal
iights ovei immovable piopeity. It is conceineu with lapse of time in
the mannei anu unuei conuitions laiu uown by law, namely, that the
possession shoulu be in the concept of an ownei, public, peaceful,
uninteiiupteu anu auveise. Acquisitive piesciiption is eithei oiuinaiy
oi extiaoiuinaiy. 0iuinaiy acquisitive piesciiption iequiies possession
in goou faith anu with just title foi ten yeais. In extiaoiuinaiy
piesciiption owneiship anu othei ieal iights ovei immovable piopeity
aie acquiieu thiough uninteiiupteu auveise possession theieof foi
thiity yeais without neeu of title oi of goou faith.
The goou faith of the possessoi consists in the ieasonable belief that the
peison fiom whom he ieceiveu the thing was the ownei theieof, anu
coulu tiansmit his owneiship. Foi puiposes of piesciiption, theie is just
title when the auveise claimant came into possession of the piopeity
thiough one of the moues iecognizeu by law foi the acquisition of
owneiship oi othei ieal iights, but the giantoi was not the ownei oi
coulu not tiansmit any iight.
Shoppers Paradise Realty v. Roque
3.E".=5 )+( >AAF
67%"#( 34
In 199S, petitionei enteieu into a 2S-yeai lease with ueceaseu Bi. Roque
ovei a paicel of lanu. When Bi. uieu, son Efien contenueu that uau hau
no authoiity to entei into agieements with petitionei because the
piopeities hau long been given to him by his paients thiough a BIv
duly notarized, but remained in Drs name.
The iegistiation of a ueeu of uonation uoes not affect its valiuity. As
being itself a moue of acquiiing owneiship, uonation iesults in an
effective tiansfei of title ovei the piopeity fiom the uonoi to the uone.
In uonations of immovable piopeity, the law iequiies foi its valiuity that
it shoulu be containeu in a public uocument, specifying theiein the
piopeity uonateu anu the value of the chaiges which the uone must
S1
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
satisfy.
It is enough between the paities to a uonation of an immpvable that the
uonation be maue in a public uocument, but in oiuei to vinu thiiu
peisons, the uonation must be iegisteieu in the iegistiy of Piopeity.

R0+"5($ 7; !M
;:<=".=5 *( )**B
;=.E07$01( 34
Peuio Calapine wants to ievoke the uonation he maue to his nicece in
1984. Niece committeu falsification of public uocument.
Sps. Euuaite contenus that the ciime is neithei one against the peison
noi piopeity of the uonoi but against public inteiest.
The Supieme Couit iuleu that all ciimes which offenu the
uonoi show ingiatituue anu aie causes foi ievocation.

V3,$0" 7; !M
Q:N%:2<:= >( )***
R1EJ.#.89:5:$( 34
Biiecto togethei with hei nephew anu anothei, extiajuuicially
paititioneu the lanu uonateu to them. 0n the same uate, she uonateu in
favoi of Noceua a pait of hei lanu. 0n hei shaie of the lanu, she fenceu it
anu constiucteu thiee huts theiein. 0n a latei uate, Noceua iemoveu the
fence, enteieu the piemises anu useu the thiee lots. Bespite uemanus foi
him to vacate, he iefuseu to uo so, piompting Biiecto to file a case
against him anu ievoke the uonation maue by hei.
The acts of Noceua aie acts of usuipation which is an offense against the
piopeity of Biiecto anu consiueieu an act of ingiatituue of a uonee
against a donor. The law doesnt require conviction of the donee, it is
enough that his offense is pioveu in the action foi ievocation.
e+)3 "60 836# 7; 23:"6 !"(>3)', C'#>3@ 3? 8"6 K"<)3
-.=0K +)( >AA,
R.=07.( 34
1977: petitionei uonateu unto iesponuent a paicel of lanu in Calamba.
Beeu of uonation also beais acceptance of uone.
Conuition that it be useu foi the builuing of an institution foi the
homeless.
198u: foi the puipose of geneiating funus foi the eiection of builuing,
leaseu the uonateu piopeity to uonez wuth piioi consent fiom uonoi.
1986: leaseu again to }ose Bostie, who useu it as a ianch.
In 199u, petitioneis seek ievocation.
Considering that the donees act uiu not uetiact fiom the veiy puipose
foi which the uonation was maue but piecisely to achieve such
puiposeu, a lack of piioi wiitten consent of the uonoi woulu only
constitute casual bieach, which will not waiiant ievocation
!>+" 7; O',(35'3
-.5 )?( >AAF
UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34
Responuent Nutya victoiio is the ownei of the piopeity in Panganiban
Stieet, Santiago, Isabela wheie petitioneis Chua anu Yong Tian aie
lessees.
In 199u, victoiio effecteu an ejectment suit against the petitioneis who
weie not fulfilling theii obligations as lessees, but a compiomise
agieement supeiveneu this. In 1994, victoiio iaiseu the ientals anu
petitioneis uiu not comply with such payments. She then again moveu
foi an ejectment suit. The RTC anu CA oiueieu iesponuents to vacate the
piopeity. But this uiu not happen because iesponuents agieeu as to the
new ientals anu theie again continueu occupation of the piopeity.
The compiomise agieement executeu in 1991 is without moment as to
petitioners claim.
Accoiuingly, in 1994, the juiiuical ielation between the paities was
severed when the CA ordered ejectment of the petitioners. The lessors
acceptance of the incieaseu ientals in 1996 uiu not have the effect of
ieviving the eailiei contiact of lease. 0pon the moment of acquiescence
by iesponuents to the incieaseu amount, an entiiely new contiact of
lease was enteieu into, foiging an entiiely new juiiuical ielation. Since
payment of ient was maue on a monthly basis, anu puisuant to Aiticle
1687 of the Civil Coue, the peiiou of this lease contiact was monthly.
0pon the expiiation of eveiy month, the lessoi coulu inciease the ients
anu uemanu that the lessee vacate the piemises upon non-compliance
with incieaseu teims.
S2
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
In 1998, victoiio wanteu to inciease again the ientals. They again faileu
to pay such ients anu iesponuent fileu again foi ejectment suit.
Petitioneis impugn such iaises in ients, invoking the piovisions of the
compiomise agieement that the two paities executeu sometime in 1991.
They contenu that theie can be no inciease of moie than 2S% in a span
of 4 yeais.


The iight of iescission is statutoiily iecognizeu in iecipiocal obligations,
such as contiacts of lease. In auuition to the geneial iemeuy of
iescission gianteu unuei Aiticle 1191 of the Civil Coue, theie is an
inuepenuent piovision gianting the iemeuy of iescission foi bieach of
any of the lessor or lessees statutory obligations. Under Article 1659 of
the Civil Coue, the aggiieveu paity may, at his option, ask foi (1) the
iescission of the contiact; (2) iescission anu inuemnification foi
uamages; oi (S) only inuemnification foi uamages, allowing the contiact
to iemain in foice.
Payment of the rent is one of a lessees statutory obligations. The law
giants the lessoi the option of extiajuuicially teiminating the contiact of
lease by simply seiving a wiitten notice upon the lessee. This
extiajuuicial teimination has the same effect as iescission. Rescission of
lease contiacts unuei Aiticle 16S9 of the Civil Coue uoes not iequiie an
inuepenuent action, unlike iesolution of iecipiocal obligations unuei
Aiticle 1191 of saiu Coue.



SS
!"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$"
!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2
3
*%
*$4$*%$" )& 563675633
!"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
>*)8+(,
[special mega super duper thank you po. Without you, I wouldnt have been able to cram for my property written exam. :D]

Block B2uu8 Nagic Notes
ABAPT 2uu9 Piopeity Notes
http:www.sciibu.comuocS4161S8SCase-Bigest-on-Piopeity-Law
http:beinegueiieio.comnoue416
http:www.sciibu.comuocS7272797Piopeity-Bigest
http:beinegueiieio.comnoue1S1
http:kaiissafaye.blogspot.com2u1uuSait-xi-sec2-ombuusman-vs.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity11S1-cebu-oxygen-anu-acetylene-co-v-beicilles-66-scia-4S1.html
http:beinegueiieio.comnoueS7u
http:www.oyez.oigcases194u-1949194S194S_6Su
http:beinegueiieio.comnoueS82
http:www.sciibu.comuoc246S47u4PR0PERTY-Rights-of-Accession
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1167-binalay-v-manalo-19S-scia-S74.html
http:www.oflouoi.compiopeity-case-uigest-sps-pingol-v-couit-of-appeals
http:www.oflouoi.comcase-uigest-titong-v-couit-of-appeals
http:www.sciibu.comuocS8uu417uPoitic-vs-Anastacia-Ciistobal
http:www.sciibu.comuoc246S4697PR0PERTY-Labitag-Lectuies-1st-Sem-AY-u9-1u
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawjuiispiuuence12u2-maiiano-v-ca-222-scia-7S6.html
http:www.oflouoi.compiopeity-case-uigest-iamiiez-v-iamiiez
http:www.oflouoi.compiopeity-case-uigest-pamplona-v-moieto
http:www.oflouoi.compiopeity-case-uigest-vua-ue-castio-v-atienza
http:beinegueiieio.co-ph.com2uuSu912haystack-estoque-vs-pajimula-gi-l-24419-1S-july-1968
http:www.oflouoi.comcase-uigest-uiveisifieu-cieuit-coipoiation-v-felipe-iosauo-anu-luz-jayme-iosauo
http:www.oflouoi.comcase-uigest-macasaet-v-macasaet
http:www.oflouoi.compiopeity-case-uigest-avelino-baluian-v-hon-iicaiuo-navaiio
http:www.sciibu.comuocSS17uuS2Piopeity-Case-Bigest
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity12S1-valueiama-v-noith-negios-sugai-cential-48-phil-492-easements.html
http:www.batasnatin.cominuex.php.option=com_content&view=aiticle&iu=1267:quimen-v-ca-2S7-scia-16S&catiu=6u:civil-law-juiispiuuence&Itemiu=11S
http:www.sciibu.comuocS664S269La-vista-Association-v-CA-et-Al-Bigest
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1278-vua-ue-baltazai-v-ca-24S-scia-SSS-compulsoiy-easement-iight-of-way.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1264-floio-v-llenauo-244-scia-71S-easement-iight-of-way.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1S29-lagazo-v-ca-287-scia-18-simple-anu-puie-uonation.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawobligations-anu-contiacts1S24-bonsato-v-ca-9S-phil-481.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1S27-gestopa-v-ca-S42-scia-1uS.html
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1S47-austiia-magat-v-ca-S7S-scia-SS6.html
http:www.sciibu.comuoc286727u6Specpio-Reviewei-Cha
http:www.sciibu.comuocS48S64u2S0NIPAT-vs-BANuA
http:www.familymatteis.oig.phNew%2uCivil%2uCoueCivil%2uCoue%2u0sufiuct.htm
http:www.batasnatin.comlaw-libiaiycivil-lawpiopeity1S49-noceua-v-ca-S1S-scia-Su4.html
http:thestiayuecision.woiupiess.com2u1uu71Schua-vs-victoiio