I.

Classification of Property || ||
Definition of Property:

Last Updated:
Oct. 7, 2013
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 1 85
 I. Classification of Property || A. Immovable and Movable Property ||
Classes of Immovables

Definition of Property:
- An object that is, or may be, appropriated
- Capacity to satisfy human wants
- Anything with pecuniary value
Definition of Appropriation:
- Act of taking over of a thing
- Intention is to acquire ownership and possession
Requisites of Property:
1. Utility
2. Individuality / Substantivity
3. Susceptibility to Appropriation
REAL RIGHT
No passive subject
Object is a corporeal thing
Will of subject affects the thing
directly
Created by mode and title
Extinguished by loss or destruction
of the thing
Give rise to real actions against 3rd
persons
IMMOVABLE MOVABLE
ACQUISITION RTC where property Election by plaintiff:
is located domicile/location of either
plaintiff or defendant
CONTRACTS Real Estate Chattel Mortgage, loans,
Mortgages deposit, pledge
MANNER OF Donation in a public Private document unless
EXECUTION instrument value is more than 500k
PRESCRIPTION 30 yrs. 8 yrs.
REGISTRATION Registry of Property Chattel Mortgage Registry
/ Deeds
Classes of Immovables
1. Immovable by Nature
a. Cannot be moved from place to place
2. Immovable by Incorporation
PERSONAL RIGHT a. Essentially movables but are attached to an immovable,
Specific / definite subjects to be an integral part thereof
Object is an intangible thing 3. Immovable by Destination
(prestation) a. Essentially movables but they become immovable
Will of subject affects the thing because of their purpose
indirectly 4. Immovable by Analogy/By Law
Created by title alone
Extinguished by extinguishment of Article 414
the title All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:
Produce only personal actions (1) Immovable or real property; or
against the definite debtor (2) Movable or personal property.

I. Classification of Property
Article 415
Classification of Things
The following are immovable property:
1. Res nullius (belonging to no one)
2. Res communes (belonging to everyone) (1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form
3. Res alicujus (belonging to someone)
an integral part of an immovable;
Classifications of Property (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that
As to Ownership it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object;
1. Public Dominion (4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed
2. Private Dominion in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner
that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner
As to Alienability
of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a
1. Within the commerce of man building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of
2. Outside the commerce of man the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of
similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with
As to Existence
the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a
1. Present Property permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included;
2. Future Property (7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the
bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
As to Materiality
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature
1. Tangible and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
2. Intangible (10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over
immovable property.
As to Accession
1. Principal
2. Accessory

As to Capability of Substitution
1. Fungible
2. Non-Fungible

As to Mobility
1. Immovable
2. Movable

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 2 85
 I. Classification of Property || A. Immovable and Movable Property || Characteristics of Immovable Property
Paragraph 10 (By Analogy)

Davao Sawmill v Castillo (1935)

Machinery, which is movable in its nat ure, only
Paragraph 1 (Land)
becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by
- Immovable by nature the owner of the property or plant, but not
- A construction must be intended to be permanently attached to when so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or
land and substantial
any person having only a temporary right,
Paragraph 2 (Trees) unless such person acted as an agent of the
- Immovable by incorporation / nature owner.
- Growing crops are movables for purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Sawmill Company mounted machineries in a building
Law1 whose lease contained a stipulation that all
Paragraph 3 (Things incorporated) FACTS: improvements & buildings introduced shall pass to the
exclusive property of the owner/lessor after the lease
- Immovable by incorporation
expires.
- Breakage or Injury must be substantial
ISSUE: Is the machinery real or personal property?
- Need not be placed by the owner PERSONAL. It is clear in the lease contract that the parties
Paragraph 4 (Fixtures and Ornaments) intended the machineries to be personal properties, as
- Immovable by incorporation / destination after the expiration of the period, the machineries will be
RATIO: retained by Davao Sawmill. As such, it can be inferred that
- Must be placed by owner / agent
the owner of the machineries did not intend for the
- With the intention of attaching them permanently
machineries to attach to the land which it has merely
- No need for inseparability from an immovable leased.
Paragraph 5 (Machinery and Equipment)
- Immovable by destination Standard Oil v Jaramillo (1923)
- Must be placed by owner / agent The duties of a register of deeds in respect to
- Adapted to the needs of the industry or works the registration of chattel mortgages are purely
- Such machineries/equipment must also be essential to the of a ministerial character.
business/industry2
- Said industry or works must be done on the land or inside the Parties to a contract may by agreement treat
building as personal property that which by nature
would be real property
Paragraph 6 (Animal houses)
Lessee executed a document in the form of a chattel
- Immovable by destination
mortgage, conveying to Standard Oil by way of mortgage,
- Must be placed by owner/agent
both the leasehold interest in the lot and the building that
- Intention of permanently attaching it stands thereon.
Paragraph 7 (Fertilizer) Standard Oil presented the document to the register of
FACTS:
- Immovable by incorporation deeds (Jaramillo) for the purpose of having the document
recorded in the book of chattel mortgages. Jaramillo takes
- Must be spread over land
the position that the document is not a chattel mortgage
Paragraph 8 (Mines) because the interests therein did not appear to be
- Immovable by nature personal property.
- When minerals are already gathered, they become personal Can the Registry of Deeds determine property as
ISSUE:
property real/personal?
NO. Such agency of the government is not clothed with
Paragraph 9 (Docks) RATIO: power to determine the nature of a property being
- Immovable by destination registered.
- Intention of remaining in a fixed place
- Vessels are not included (though sometimes they partake the Mindanao Bus Co. v City Assessor (1962)
nature of an immovable because of their great value3) A machine, receptacle, instrument, implement
Paragraph 10 (By Analogy) must also be ESSENTIAL to the business in order
- Immovable by analogy to be considered realty. Mere i ntention
- These are not material things but are rights necessary.
Mindanao Bus Co. owned a land where it maintains and
CASES ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES operates a garage for its land transportation business. It
Leung Yee v Strong Machinery (1918) FACTS: placed machineries on the said land which it alleges that it
Compania Agricola Filipina registers the mortgage of a uses for the said industry. The City Assessor is taxing the
F A C T S : building (no reference with the land) in the Registry of machineries as real property.
Chattel Mortgage. ISSUE: Are these machineries real property, thus taxable?
Does the registry mean that the building is now to be NO. In order for movable equipment to be immobilized, it
ISSUE: must first be "essential and principal elements" to an
considered chattel property?
NO. The separate treatment of the building from the land industry or works, without which such industry or works
R A T I O : did not change the character of the former, it being real RATIO: would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial
property. purpose for which it was established." In this case, the
machineries are merely incidental to the business, only
used for expediency.
NOTE: SC expounded on Essentiality as an element of 415(5)

1 Sibal v. Valdez (1927) 3 Phil Refining Co v Jarque (1935)

2 Mindanao Bus Co. v City Assessor (1962)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 3 85

Berkenkotter v Cu Unjieng (1935)
Machinery introduced by the mortgagee is part
of the permanent improvements, i.e. realty by
incorporation, UNLESS explicitly excluded.
A Sugar Central loaned from Cu Unjieng, with a mortgage
on the land and building and all improvements now and in
FACTS: the future. Sugar Central increased its capacity by buying
additional machinery and equipment. Mortgage was
foreclosed.
Are these improvements real property, therefore part of
ISSUE:
the foreclosure?
YES. As necessary for the carrying out of the industrial
functions of the sugar central, such machineries are
immovable by incorporation, thus subject to the provision
of the mortgage. The fact that the purchaser of the new
machinery and equipment has bound himself to the
RATIO: person supplying him the purchase money to hold them as
security for the payment of the latter's credit, and to
refrain from mortgaging or otherwise encumbering them
does not alter the permanent character of the
incorporation of said machinery and equipment with the
central.
NOTE: SC added Essentiality as another element of 415(5)
Board of Assessment Appeals v MERALCO (1964)
MERALCO steel towers are personalty. It neither
adheres to the land, nor attached in a fixed
manner, nor is it a machinery, etc.
Three steel towers owned by MERALCO are being
FACTS: subjected to real property tax payments by the City
Assessor.
ISSUE: Are these towers real property, therefore taxable?
NO. The steel towers are indeed poles, according to
contemporary definition, and therefore are exempted
from tax, as provided for by par. 9 of MERALCOs
franchise. Assuming arguendo that such towers are not
exempted, they are still not immovable as they are not
RATIO:
adhered to the soil, nor are they fixed to the concrete in a
manner where it cannot be separated without breaking
the concrete (they are fixed using screws) and even if they
were implements attached to an immovable, MERALCO is
not engaged in any business/industry in said lands.
Phil Refining Co v Jarque (1935)
Vessels are personal property. Affidavit of
Good Faith is required by the Chattel Mortgage
Law so that the mortgage may be enforceable
against 3rd persons.
Petitioner executed mortgages on its vessels. Some of the
FACTS: mortgages were registered late and some lacked an
affidavit of good faith. Mortgage was foreclosed.
WON the mortgages of the vessels are governed by the
Chattel Mortgage Law?
ISSUES:
WON an affidavit of good faith is needed to enforce a
chattel mortgage on a vessel?
YES TO BOTH. Personal property includes vessels. They
are subject to the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
The Chattel Mortgage Law says that a good chattel
RATIO:
mortgage includes an affidavit of good faith. The absence
of such affidavit makes mortgage unenforceable against
creditors and subsequent encumbrances.
In most civil law jurisdictions, vessels are personalty. In
PROF: case of double sale, vessels are considered realty because
of their value.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
I. Classification of Property || A. Immovable and Movable Property || Movable Property
Test for Movability
Presbitero v Fernandez (1963)
Sugar Quota Allocations are realty by law
(Sugar Limitation Law, RA 1825). Sugar quotas
are inseparable from the land just like
servitudes and other real rights.
A judgement was rendered against Presbitero. Sheriff
levied on Sugar Quotas, but such execution was not
FACTS: registered in the Registry of Deeds. Presbitero moved to
cancel such writ of execution, asserting that it was invalid
because of such sugar quotas were real property.
ISSUE: Are these sugar quotas immovable?
YES. Under express provisions of law, the sugar quota
allocations are accessories to the land, and cannot have an
RATIO:
independent existence away from a plantation, although
the latter may vary.
Article 416
The following things are deemed to be personal property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the
preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as
personal property;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without
impairment of the real property to which they are fixed.
Article 417
The following are also considered as personal property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable
sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial, although they
may have real estate.
Article 418
Movable property is either consumable or nonconsumable. To the first class belong
those movables which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without
their being consumed; to the second class belong all the others.
Test for Movability
1. Transportability
2. Separability without impairment
3. Not in Art. 415
CASES ON MOVABLE PROPERTIES
Sibal v Valdez (1927)
Growing crops raised by yearly labor and
cultivation are PERSONALTY.
Sibal tried to redeem the sugar cane he himself planted
after it was attached and sold by the sheriff to Valdez.
FACTS:
If realty, he may redeem. If personalty, not subject to
redemption.
ISSUE: Are ungathered products personal property?
YES. Sec. 450 was taken from the Code of Civil
Procedure of California whose SC has held that growing
crops were personal property and were subject to
execution. The Chattel Mortgage Code also recognizes
growing crops as personal property. In conclusion, Art
RATIO:
334 (2) CC is found to have been modified by Sec. 450
and by Act No. 1508 in the sense that for the purpose of
attachment an execution, and for the purposes of the
Chattel Mortgage Law, Ungathered products have the
nature of personal property.
Doctrine is limited to attachment, execution, and the
TOLENTINO:
Chattel Mortgage Law.
4 85

Chua Guan v Samahang Magsasaka (1935)
Registration of a mortgage of shares must be
made in both the province of the creditors
domicile and the province where the
corporation has its principal offi ce.
Co Toco defaulted on a loan from Chua Guan, and the
latter tried to collect on Co Tocos mortgaged shares of
capital stock in Samahang Magsasaka (mortgage
FACTS: registered in the corporate office and in MNL). Samahang
Magsasaka defends that there are 9 prior attachments on
Co Tocos share, thus it cannot issue new certificates in
Chua Guans name, as the attachments have priority.
Does the registration give constructive notice, making the
ISSUE:
encumbrance earlier than the attachments?
NO. Registration was defective, therefore having no
effect. Sec. 4 of the Chattel Mortgage Law provides 2 ways
for executing a valid chattel mortgage. 1st, the possession
must be delivered to and retained by the mortgagee; and
2nd, the mortgage is recorded in the office of the register
of deeds of the province in which the mortgagor resides at
the time of making the same, or in the province in which
the property is situated. Provided, however, that if the
property is situated in a different province from that in
RATIO:
which the mortgagor resides, the mortgage shall be
recorded in the office of the register of deeds of both the
province in which the mortgagor resides and that in which
the property is situated. Given that the location of the
shares cannot be identified, such mortgage must then be
registered at the province where the head office of the
company is located. SM was located at Nueva Ecija,
therefore, mortgage shouldve been registered there, not
in Manila.
Case illustrates how shares are personal property, so that
NOTE:
the Chattel Mortgage Law applies.
Bachrach Motor v Ledesma (1931)
Stock dividends may be the subject of
pledge/chattel mortgage because they are
quasi-negotiable instruments, which may be
given in pledge or mortgage to secure an
obligation. Bonus is not civil fruits as
contemplated in Art. 442. It is not income
obtained or derived from the land itself, but
income obtained as compensation for the risk
assumed by the owner.
Bachrach Motor brought an action against Talisay-Silay to
recover the Bonus it had declared to its farmers and the
shares of stock to Ledesma, as part of the executable
FACTS:
properties of the latter. Ledesma avers that these stocks
were pledged first to PNB, and the latter has possession
over the certificates of the stock.
Are the bonuses personal property, thus not subject to
foreclosure?
ISSUES:
Were the shares of stock validly pledged to PNB, in the
absence of a public document?
YES TO BOTH. The Court ruled in a previous case that the
said Bonuses were in fact payment to the farmers for the
risk they were taking for working on a mortgaged land,
therefore not being fruits as contemplated in Art. 442. The
RATIO: shares of stock, though not in a public document, were
validly pledged, since according to the CML, mere transfer
of possession of the property (in this case, certificates of
shares is constructive delivery of property) is enough to
validate a pledge/mortgage.
4
Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic (2009)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
I. Classification of Property || || Movable Property
When is Public Domain transformed into Patrimonial Property?
Article 419
Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
Article 420
The following things are property of public dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports
and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others
of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are
intended for some public service or for the development of the national
wealth.
Property is either:
- Public Dominion
- Private Ownership
Property of the Public Dominion is either for:
- Public use
- Public service
- Development of National Wealth
Property owned through Private Ownership is either:
- Owned by private individuals
- Patrimonial Property of the State
Presumption: Public nature
Burden of Proof: The one questioning the nature
Article 421
All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding
article, is patrimonial property.
Article 422
Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public
service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion
- Outside the commerce of man
- Cannot be acquired by prescription
- Cannot be the subject of a land registration
- Not subject to attachment / execution
- In general, can be used by everyone
- May be either real or personal property
Article 423
The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided into property for
public use and patrimonial property.
Article 424
Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the
provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or
municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by
this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws.
Article 425
Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial property of the State,
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of all property belonging to private
persons, either individually or collectively.
When is Public Domain transformed into Patrimonial Property?4
- Only through express declaration by the State that the public
dominion property has been converted into patrimonial property,
even though it was classified as alienable or disposable
- Regardless if the intended public use never took place, it will only
become alienable upon declaration
- This must be done by Congress or by the President, if the power was
provided by law
5 85

Can patrimonial property be acquired through prescription?
- Yes. According to Heirs of Malabanan, It is clear under the Civil
Code that where lands of the public domain are patrimonial in
character, they are susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the
other hand, among the public domain lands that are not
susceptible to acquisitive prescription are timber lands and mineral
lands. The Constitution itself proscribes private ownership of
timber or mineral lands.
CASES ON PROPERTIES OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Republic v. Vda. de Castillo (1988)
Continuous possession of land within public
dominion does not divest it of its public
character.
Spouses de Castillo applied for the registration of
lakeshore land, which was granted. They were issued
certificates of title thereon. The Republic then sought to
nullify the registration, presenting evidence that residents
FACTS:
had intentionally filled the land for duck farming, that
parts of the lakeshore still became submerged during the
rainy season, and that the Castillos had never possessed
the land.
ISSUE: Can the land be registered?
NO. It is land of public dominion, which is not subject to
RATIO: registration as private property. Even continuous
possession of land will not divest it of its public character.
Mendoza v Navarette (1992)
As per the Public Land Act, free patents cover
only public lands, and are null and void when
issued over private property.
Plaintiff inherited land from his father, which was later
partitioned into and shares. His sister, owner of the
share, sold her interest to another sibling, whose husband
FACTS: was later granted a Free Patent covering the entire land.
Plaintiff then instituted this action, claiming that the title
granted to the defendants is void for not being issued to
the actual and legal owners.
ISSUE: Is the Free Patent over the land valid?
NO. Respondents had filed for the Free Patent with the
Bureau of Lands, which cannot dispose of any land that is
not public. Free Patents do not affect the private
RATIO:
ownership of land, because the Public Land Act applies
only to lands of public dominion. The Free Patent issued
thus has no effect.
Registration does not vest title; it is not a mode of
NOTE:
acquiring property.
Maneclang v IAC (1986)
A creek is an arm ext ending from a river. It falls
within the bodies of water treated by law as
public dominion.
Petitioners sought to quiet title over a fishpond, which
was originally a creek flowing from the Agno River. The
trial court dismissed, ruling that the fishpond was public
FACTS:
property. Petitioners then offered a Compromise
Agreement to the municipal government, wherein it was
stipulated that the fishpond would be declared theirs.
ISSUE: Is the Compromise Agreement over the fishpond valid?
NO. A creek is defined as a recess or arm extending from a
river, participating in the ebb and flow of the sea. It is
property belonging to the public domain, and thus cannot
RATIO: be privately appropriated; nor is it subject to acquisitive
prescription. The mere fact that the National Irrigation
Administration had constructed dikes around it had not
altered its character as public property.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
I. Classification of Property || B. Properties of the Public Domain || Movable Property
Can patrimonial property be acquired through prescription?
Santos v Moreno (1967)
Man-made canals neither constructed by the
State nor devoted to public use are private
property.
The owners of Hacienda San Esteban, formerly a nipa
plantation, dug canals on the land to better access the
lands interior. When they converted their business to
bangus cultivation, they closed down many of these canals
FACTS: and built dikes over them. RA 2056 prohibits the
construction of dams/dikes on public waters and
waterways, so the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications was ordered to proceed against the
Hacienda.
ISSUE: Are canals on privately owned lands private?
YES. Witnesses testified that they themselves had created
and dug the streams. The owners of Hacienda San Esteban
had also prohibited the public from using the streams as a
RATIO: means of navigation. Because they were made with the
workers own hands and devoted exclusively to the use of
the Hacienda, the canals are deemed private. The dikes
constructed thus cannot be torn down.
Hilario v City of Manila (1967)
The law considers riverbanks to be composed of
the same material as the riverbed, which is
public in nature. Therefore, the riverbank is
also public.
A great flood inundated Petitioners estate. Afterwards,
the river left its original bed and segregated from the
estate a lenticular piece of land. The US Army opened a
sand and gravel plant within the premises, paying
FACTS:
petitioner for their excavations. Later, however, the Army
turned over the plant to the City of Manila, who continued
to extract and excavate on the land. Petitioner then filed
action to prohibit them from their operations.
When a river, leaving its old bed, changes its general
course and opens a new one through private property,
ISSUE:
would the new riverbanks lining said course be of public
ownership also?
YES. Though it is a compound concept containing three
elements (running water, bed, banks), a river has only one
RATIO: nature: public. The Law of Waters expressly considers
riverbanks as part of the riverbed, which the Civil Code
recognizes as property of public dominion.
Martinez v CA (1974)
The indefeasible right granted by a Torrens
title does not operate ov er public property.
The right of the State to nullify the private
registration of public property does not
prescribe.
Petitioner spouses are registered owners of a fishpond,
whose previous owner had been prevented by the then
municipal president from constructing dikes on the
FACTS: property. Though the Committee on Rivers and Streams
had ruled that the spouses should be restored to exclusive
possession, the acting city mayor refused to recognize
their decision.
ISSUE: Are the fishponds of public dominion?
YES. The fishpond was a branch of the main river covered
with water since time immemorial. It is, therefore, part of
the public domain, over which the incontestability and
RATIO:
indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not operate. The
States right to assail the registration or compel the
reconveyance of public property also does not prescribe.
6 85

Municipality of Cavite v Sps. Rojas (1915)
Leases on properties classified as part of the
public domain are void. Rent must be returned
to the lessees, and pr operty must be returned
to its original state.
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease agreement for
a parcel of land in the Soledad plaza in Cavite. Plaintiff
FACTS:
then demanded that defendant Rojas vacate within 60
days, but the latter failed.
ISSUE: Is land part of the plaza public?
YES. The land was found to be part of Plaza Soledad,
which belonged to the municipality. It is part of a
RATIO:
promenade for public use, and the municipality cannot
withdraw or exclude it from such use.
Insular Govt v Aldecoa & Co (1911)
If the State has not declared that public land
is no longer needed for public use, then it
remains inalienable.
Aldecoa occupied two parcels of land whose titling they
sought, alleging that their occupancy of the land for 17
years was by virtue of a verbal agreement with the
FACTS:
politico-military governor of Surigao. The Attorney-
General challenged their claim, contending these lands
were within public dominion.
ISSUE: Are the lands still of public dominion?
YES. The Court ruled for the Attorney-General. Nearly all
the lands in question had once been covered by seawater,
and were thus public. Further, the politico-military
RATIO:
governor had no power to alienate land; neither has the
government declared that these lands were no longer
needed for public use.
Sps Villarico v CA (1999)
Possession, no matter how long, cannot convert
public land into property capable of private
appropriation.
Petitioner spouses claim to be owners of a parcel of land,
having been in possession of it for over 30 years. The
FACTS: Director of Lands, however, contends that it is within
unclassified forest area, and thus part of the public
domain.
ISSUE: Does acquisitive prescription operate over public land?
NO. The adverse possession which may form the basis of a
grant of title or confirmation of an imperfect title is only
RATIO: that which is exercised over alienable portions of the
public domain. It does not operate for lands not yet
categorized as alienable or disposable.
MIAA v CA (2006)
MIAAs Airport Land and Buildings are only held
in trust for the State. They are of the public
dominion, and therefore not subject to tax.
The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel issued an
opinion withdrawing the exemption from real estate tax
granted to MIAA. MIAA then negotiated and was able to
FACTS:
pay some of the total balance, but the mayor of
Paraaque later decided that, should MIAA fail to pay its
delinquency, it will be up for public auction.
ISSUE: Are airport lands public property?
YES. MIAA was merely a government instrumentality,
instead of a GOCC, and therefore cannot be taxed. It is
merely holding the property in trust. Further, under Art.
420, ports are considered property of public dominion,
RATIO:
and the Court construed this as to include seaports and
airports. Thus, the lands and buildings are not subject to
private appropriation, nor to levy, encumbrance, or
disposition, whether by public or private sale.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
I. Classification of Property || B. Properties of the Public Domain || Movable Property
Can patrimonial property be acquired through prescription?
Apex Mining v Southeast Mindanao (2009)
Mining operations on public land are within the
States full control and operation.
Apex Mining Corporation had mining operations in the
Diwalwal Gold Rush Area in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao
Forest Reserve. Marcopper Mining Corporation meanwhile
FACTS: applied for a prospecting permit with the Bureau of Forest
Development, because it realized the lands were public.
The permit issued covered even the areas Apex operated
in.
ISSUE: Is the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area of public dominion?
YES. During the pendency of these cases, Pres. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo had issue Proclamation No. 297,
proclaiming as a mineral reservation and as
environmentally critical an area covering Diwalwal. The
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources issued
Admin. Order No. 2002-18, declaring an emergency
situation in Diwalwal, and ordering the stoppage of all
RATIO: mining operations therein. The Court ruled that these were
constitutionally sanctioned acts of the Executive Branch.
The State can thus either directly undertake the
exploration, development, and utilization of the area, or it
can enter agreements with qualified entities, including
petitioner Apex if it so wishes. The exercise of this
prerogative, however, lies entirely with the Executive, and
the Court cannot interfere.
Sanchez v Municipality of Asingan (1963)
The lease of patrimonial land is not void, but it
does not entitle the lessors to reimbursement of
rentals.
Petitioners own temporary stores built on land owned by
the Municipality of Asingan. Asked to vacate by the new
administration of the said municipality, since the land will
FACTS: be used for public purposes, the petitioners filed a petition
for prohibition to prevent the municipality from evicting
them, or alternatively, to receive reimbursement for their
rent.
Are petitioners entitled to the return of rentals paid for
ISSUE:
public land?
NO. The land is not of public dominion, but patrimonial in
character, since it is not included in categories of
municipal properties for public use, as enumerated in Art.
424 of the Civil Code. But the implied lease agreement is
RATIO:
not void, though it is terminable at the municipalitys
option. Petitioners would be unduly enriched if they were
to be reimbursed, since they occupied and derived benefit
from the land.
CAVITE V. ROJAS SANCHEZ V. ASINGAN
House on public land Temporary stores on public land
Residential Purpose Proprietary Purpose
Land was used as a plaza Municipality claims that it was
patrimonial property
Void ab initio Not null and void, but may be
terminated upon demand
Rentals were returned Rentals were not returned
*Authors Views:
I believe that the obiter in Asingan should have been penned the same way
Cavite v. Rojas was decided. Regardless of the benefit that they have received
from the illegal lease, they should have been returned to their previous state;
rentals to be returned and the structure being demolished/removed. Is it not
also unjust enrichment on the part of the state to appropriate the rentals of
an illegal lease?
7 85
 I. Classification of Property || B. Properties of the Public Domain || Movable Property
Can patrimonial property be acquired through prescription?

Cebu Oxygen v Bercilles (1975) The conveyance by PEA of submerged lands even before
The power to declare public land no longer for their reclamation is invalid, because such lands are owned
public use rests with whichever authority may by the State and are therefore inalienable.
be given such power.
The Cebu City Council issued a resolution declaring a Dacanay v Asistio (1992)
portion of a road as abandoned and therefore alienable, Leasing and licensing of public streets, which
FACTS: are beyond the commerce of men, is prohibited.
which the Provincial Fiscal opposed on the ground that
was intended for public use. An ordinance designated certain public areas as sites of
Does the City Council have the power to make such a public markets, after which licenses were issued to market
ISSUE:
declaration? stall owners to erect stalls along these areas. The mayor-
YES, AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY ITS REVISED CHARTER. FACTS: in-charge of the previous administration caused the
The Council has discretionary power, which the Court will demolition of the stalls, but the next mayor did not
RATIO: not interfere with. The land, having been withdrawn from continue it. Petitioner now asks that the stalls be
public use, has become part of the patrimonial property, demolished.
which can be the object of ordinary contracts. Should the market stalls in these public areas be
ISSUE:
demolished?
Chavez v NHA (2007) YES. The market stalls are undisputedly on public streets,
Lands that have been classified as no longer which are for public use, and outside the commerce of
RATIO:
intended for public use may be alienated. men. They may not be the subject of lease or other
contracts.
Pres. Cory Aquino authorized the National Housing
There was no pronouncement as to the reimbursement of
Authority to develop low-cost housing, resulting in the NOTE:
rents. Is Rojas applicable? Open to debate
Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project.
R-II Builders won the bidding to develop the area. Later,
FACTS: Pres. Ramos authorized the NHA to enter into a Joint Republic v IAC, Rama (1992)
Venture Agreement with RB. After some time, this JVA was Forest lands are public domain, and an invalid
terminated, and RB demanded compensation for all or void ab initio patent or title over them
accomplishments and costs incurred, as well as to acquire cannot ripen into private ownership.
some of the developed area. The OIC of the Bohol Reforestation Project bulldozed trees
Can RB may acquire the reclaimed foreshore and on two parcels of land, which he believed to be forest
ISSUE:
submerged lands? lands. Rama, alleged owner of these lands, filed a
YES. NHA and RB have been granted the power and complaint to recover possession and ownership. He
authority to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands, and FACTS: averred that the Republic has been estopped from
these have been validly classified as alienable and within claiming the lands as public, because the Republic had
the commerce of man by virtue of presidential issued certificates of title over them. The IAC ruled that
RATIO:
declarations. The lands, having been impliedly declared as Rama had a right of retention while awaiting
no longer intended for public use, are no longer lands of reimbursement for the lands.
public domain, and may therefore be disposed of by the Is Rama is entitled to the lands, given that he has
State. ISSUE:
certificates of title over them?
NO. The State cannot be estopped by the errors of its
Chavez v PEA (2003) officials or agents. Rama had applied for a patent title
The Constitution prohibits private corporations over the landsindicative of his knowledge that they were
from acquiring any kind of a lienable land of the RATIO: of public domainbut his patent and OCT did not confer
public domain. In the hands of the government any validity upon his possession or claim of ownership.
agency tasked and authorized to dispose of Even his possession of the land cannot ripen into private
alienable or disposable lands of the public ownership.
domain, such lands are still public, not private
lands. Submerged lands are also lands of public
domain, and cannot be alienated before they
are reclaimed.
Certificates of title over reclaimed lands called the
Freedom Islands were issued to PEA, which may now lease
the lands, but not sell or transfer ownership, to private
FACTS:
corporations. PEA then entered into a contract conveying
to AMARI Coastal Bay Development lands both reclaimed
and still submerged.
Is the conveyance to AMARI of the reclaimed lands valid?
ISSUES:
Is the conveyance to AMARI of the submerged lands valid?
NO TO BOTH. Sec. 3, Art. XII of the Constitution expressly
prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain. As the central
implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation
projects nationwide, PEA takes the place of the Dept. of
Energy & Natural Resources as the agency charged with
RATIO:
leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public domain. In
the same manner that the lands disposed of by DENR are
not private lands, but alienable lands of the public
domain, these lands within PEAs control are still public.
Thus, they cannot be transferred to AMARI, which is a
private corporation.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 8 85

II. Ownership
Article 427
Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.
Definition of Ownership
- Independent and general power over a thing/right
- Limited by law
- Subjected to a persons will
Characteristics of Ownership
1. Elastic (powers can be detached from ownership)
2. Generality (Right to make use of all possible utilities)
3. Exclusiveness
4. Independence
5. Perpetuity
Types of Ownership
1. Full Ownership
o With complete rights over the property
2. Naked Ownership
o Absence of jus fruendi and jus utendi
3. Sole Ownership
o Ownership vested only in one person
4. Co-Ownership
o Ownership vested in 2 or more persons
CASES ON OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Republic v CA, Cosalan (1992)
Land that is in the possession of an occupant
and his predecessors -in-interest since time
immemorial is an exception to the general rule
that forest lands cannot be appropriated by
private ownership. The primary right of private
individuals who possessed and cultivated the
land in good faith much prior to a government
classification of that land as public must be
recognized.
Cosalan and his predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of a parcel of land for more than 30 years in
FACTS: the concept of an owner. Government avers that said land
has been classified as forest lands, and therefore not
subject to prescription.
ISSUE: Can the lands be acquired through prescription?
YES. The possession by the private respondents were prior
to the classification by the government. This can be seen
RATIO:
through the testimonies and the efforts of the
predecessors-in-interest to register such land.
PNB v CA, Montano (1997)
Ownership, one of its attendant rights being jus
possidendi, is limited by law. As such, a writ of
possession can only be issued if (1) the debtor
is in possession and (2) no 3rd person
intervenes.
Montano was a tenant of a parcel of land. Owner
mortgaged such land and was foreclosed by PNB. PNB now
FACTS:
wants to execute a writ of possession over the land, but
Montano moved to dissolve it.
ISSUE: Will the writ of possession application prosper?
NO. Although PNB is entitled to such remedy, the same
may only be issued if the owner is in possession and no 3rd
RATIO: persons had intervened. Because of the intervention of
Montano, a tenant with preferential rights over the
property, the Court cannot issue a writ.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
II. Ownership || A. Ownership in General || Movable Property
Types of Ownership
Distilleria Washington v CA (1996)
A replevin suit is not the proper remedy for a
violation of trademark protection over the use
of a thing, but an injunction may be granted.
Replevin is a possessory action the gist of
which focuses on the right of possession that, in
turn, is dependent on a legal basis that, not
infrequently, looks to the ownership of the
object sought to be recovered
LTDI instituted a suit for manual delivery (replevin) with
damages against Washington because the latter has been
FACTS:
buying used bottles from retailers and using them for
their products.
Is ownership of the bottles validly transferred to
ISSUE:
Washington?
YES, BUT ITS USE WAS UNAUTHORIZED. RA 623 protects
companies with their logos on bottles. When the bottle
was sold, the ownership of the corporeal thing was
transferred, but it doesnt mean that the intellectual
RATIO: property therein was transferred too. RA 623 requires that
those who wish to use the said items must ask for
authorization from the IP owner. Since Washington did not
ask for authorization, the use of the bottles for their own
products is illegal.
Here, the sale of the bottles was valid and conferred
NOTE: ownership on the buyer, with the condition that the use
will be limited to a specified liquor.
Martinez v Martinez (1902)
A donation, being an act of ownership, is
limited in that inofficious donatio ns are void.
Inofficious donations are those wherein the
donor did not reserve sufficient means for his
support and for the support of those who are
entitled thereto.
Son filed a guardianship case against his father because of
alleged prodigality. He alleges that his father is
FACTS:
squandering the estate by donating properties to his 2nd
wife.
ISSUE: Is the father a prodigal?
HELL NO. It was proven that it was the son who was a
prodigal because he was squandering the estate by
improperly administering the properties and because he
RATIO:
was filing baseless suits. The father was far from being a
prodigal, given that he had full exercise of his faculties
and was able to grow his estate.
Acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of mind and
a disposition to spend, waste, and lessen the estate to
NOTE: such an extent as is likely to expose the family to want of
support, or to deprive the forced heirs of their
undisposable part of the estate.
Lavarez v Mercado (1949)
Usufruct is one of several rights constituting
ownership. Therefore, the right of redeem
ownership includes the right to redeem usufruct.
Land was sold by Lavarez to Mercado, where Lavarez
alleges that there was Usufruct on the land that wasnt
FACTS: transferred. Now, they redeemed the land, but now
Mercado is stating that they validly acquired the Usufruct
but it not part anymore of the redeemed property.
ISSUE: Can the Usufruct be excluded from the real property?
NO. Such Usufruct is part of the property, and therefore
RATIO:
not separable from the property.
9 85
 II. Ownership || B. Concept / Attributes of Ownership || 1. Enjoy, dispose, and recover his property
Requisites in an Action to Recover

In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on
the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.
Attributes of Ownership
1. Jus utendi Right to use & enjoy Actions to Recover Personal Property
2. Jus abutendi Right to abuse/consume - Writ of Replevin
3. Jus fruendi Right to the fruits
Actions to Recover Real Property
4. Jus disponendi Right to dispose
5. Jus possidendi Right to possess - Accion interdictal
6. Jus vindicandi Right to recover - Accion publiciana
7. Jus accessioni Right to accessions - Accion reivindicatoria
- Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
- Writ of Possession
Requisites in an Action to Recover5
Limitations on Ownership
1. Property must be identified
1. Those given by the state
a. Police Power 2. Reliance on a legal/equitable title
b. Power of Eminent Domain
c. Power of Taxation Writ of Replevin
2. Those provided by law - Prayer to regain possession of personal property
a. Legal Easements - The writ may be served anywhere in the Philippines6
3. Those given by the owner himself
a. Lease, pledge, mortgage, etc.
Accion Interdictal
4. Those given by a grantor / donor
a. Prohibitions, etc. - A summary action for recovery of physical possession
- Either Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer
CASES ON LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP - Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not required
US v Causby (1946) - Action must be filed within 1 year AFTER dispossession/unlawful
Flights below the statutorily defined navigable possession/demand to vacate
airspace and within the immediate reaches of - These are proceedings in personam
the enveloping atmosphere above private - Venue may be agreed upon by the parties, for the same is not
property destroys the beneficial ownership over jurisdictional in character7
said property and thereby constitutes an - Damages are to be awarded to the plaintiff
easement over the same. As such damages must
be awarded. Forcible Entry
A military airport was causing damage to the Causby - A summary action to recover material/physical possession of real
FACTS: family, as the noise from the low-flying planes is causing property (NOT de jure)
the chickens to commit suicide by flying into the walls. - Deprivation was through Force, Intimidation, Stealth, Threat or
Was the use of the low airspace a form of easement upon Strategy [ FISTS ]
ISSUE:
the property?
YES. Although the airway is a public highway, there is a Unlawful Detainer
limit to the use of such in order to not be a burden to
- An action praying for possession after the aggressor has unlawfully
landowners. If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of
withheld the property after the expiration/termination of the right
the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate
to hold possession
reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. There is an
intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the
RATIO: Accion Publiciana
owners full enjoyment of the property and to limit his
exploitation to it. While it does not in any physical manner - A plenary action in the RTC for the recovery of the right to possess
occupy the stratum of airspace or make use of it in the real property, where the unlawful possession has already been
conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same more than 1 year
sense that space left between buildings for purpose of - This must be instituted within 10/30 years (or else acquisitive
light and air is used. prescription will deny recovery)
- Issue here is possession de jure

Accion Reivindicatoria
- An action to recover ownership over real property in the RTC
- This must be instituted within 10/30 years (or else acquisitive
Article 428 prescription will deny recovery)
The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than - Issue here is ownership. Possession is a mere incident of such
those established by law.
recovery. But this action does not necessarily include such recovery
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in
order to recover it.
Writ of Injunction
- A remedy that may be provided to the plaintiff while the case for
accion interdictal, publiciana or reivindicatoria is still pending
Article 433 - The courts must decide on the motion within 30 days upon filing
Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
property. Writ of Possession

Article 434

5 Del Valle v. Meralco 7 Villanueva v. Mosqueda

6 Fernandez v. International Corporate Bank
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 10 85

- A remedy that directs a sheriff to place a successful registrant
under the Torrens system in possession of the property
- This action never prescribes and will never be barred by laches
CASES ON ACTIONS TO RECOVER
Hilario v Salvador (2005)
Jurisdiction over civil cases involving
possession or any interest over real property is
determined by the assessed value of the
property, which should be alleged in the
complaint.
Respondent built a house on Petitioners land in Romblon.
They filed a case for accion publiciana against the
Respondent. Respondent avers that such action should be
dismissed for being filed in the RTC. It claims that it
FACTS:
shouldve been filed in the MTC, since the assessed value
of the property is P6k, which is with the MTC Jurisdiction.
Petitioner claims that it should be the RTC, because its
market value is more than P50k.
ISSUE: Does that MTC have jurisdiction?
NO. Assessed value and not market value is important in
determining jurisdiction. Assessed value is the fair market
value (or the price at which property may be sold by a
RATIO: seller not compelled to sell, to a buyer not compelled to
buy) multiplied by the assessment value, and is
synonymous to taxable value. Since the assessed value is
within the jurisdiction of the MTC, RTC had no jurisdiction.
Forcible Entry (FE) and Unlawful Detainer (UD) suits are
NOTE:
always within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Santos v Ayon (2005)
Possession by mere tolerance comes with the
implied promise that the possessor will vacate
upon demand. Failing which, an action for
ejectment is the proper remedy.
Sps. Ayons property straddled on the lot of Santos. At
first, Santos allowed this but he subsequently demanded
for the demolition of the encroaching property. The
FACTS:
spouses refused to do so. A case for UD was filed before
the MTCC. The spouses claims that the proper remedy
shouldve been an accion publiciana.
ISSUE: What is the proper remedy?
UD WAS PROPER. UD is the proper remedy if there was (1)
prior valid possession and a (2) subsequent illegal
possession because of a termination of a right. In this case,
RATIO:
the possession was valid at first (because of tolerance) but
was subsequently unlawful because of the demand to
vacate.
Ganila v CA (2005)
Prior possession is indispensable only in FE; it is
unnecessary in UD b ecause the defendant was
in prior lawful possession. It is enough that the
plaintiff in a UD suit has a better right over the
defendants.
Complainant filed a UD case against the petitioners. She
alleges that she inherited such land and she was only
tolerating their occupation. Petitioners insist that the
FACTS:
remedy was improper, as she shouldve filed a case to
recover possession de jure, as they were occupying the
land for a long time already.
ISSUE: Is the UD case the proper remedy?
UD WAS PROPER. An action for UD differs from an action
RATIO: for FE as the former does not require prior physical
possession.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
II. Ownership || E. Principle of Self Help, Requisites || 2. Action to recover
Requisites of Self-Help
Peralta-Labrador v Bugarin (2005)
A FE suit is a quieting process and it is summary
in nature. As such, it only has a 1 -year
prescription period. If the action has already
prescribed, the proper suit is an accion
publiciana commenced in the RTC.
A lot by the Petitioner was divided into 2 by a road. The
other side was possessed by Respondent in 1994. After
FACTS:
repeated pleas by the Petitioner, they filed a suit for FE
against them in the MTC in 1996.
ISSUE: Is the FE case the proper remedy?
NO. An action for FE prescribes in 1 year. The proper
remedy is an accion publiciana. It is an ordinary civil
proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
RATIO: realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment
suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual
of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty independently of title.
Article 429
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Definition of Doctrine of Self-Help
- Right to counter force with force
- The provision allows the immediate possessor/owner of a property
to use force against either an actual force upon his property or
imminent danger through threats to prevent usurpation or physical
invasion
- This cannot be used against the agents of the state acting in their
official functions or from other lawful form of action against the
possessor
- A 3rd person may use this right for the benefit of the owner. In this
case, the 3rd person acts as a negotiorum gestor, and can claim
indemnity from the owner for any injury sustained during such
defense.
Requisites of Self-Help
1. Person is owner / lawful possessor
2. There is actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion /
usurpation of property
3. Force used against aggressor is reasonably necessary to
repel/prevent such aggression
CASE ON PRINCIPLE OF SELF HELP
German Mgt & Services v CA (1989)
The party in peaceable quiet possession cannot
be turned out by a strong hand, violence or
terror. In other words, a party who can prove
prior possession has the securit y that entitles
him to remain on the property until he is lawfully
ejected by the person who has a better right
via accion publiciana or reivindicatoria
German was commissioned to turn a parcel of land into a
subdivision. They found out that private respondents were
residing in a portion thereof. They asked them to leave,
FACTS:
but the latter refused. Respondents filed a case against
German for using force to evict them. German uses the
defense of the principle of self-help.
ISSUE: Is the Principle of Self Help applicable here?
NO. For self-help to apply, there must be an actual threat
of dispossession. In this case, possession has already been
lost and the respondents have been occupying the land in
RATIO:
the concept of owner which is shown by the growing of
crops on the subject property, remedy = accion publiciana
or accion reivindicatoria.
11 85
 II. Ownership || F. Fencing his land/tenement || 2. Action to recover
Restrictions to enjoyment of Surface and Sub-surface Rights

Requisites of Eminent Domain

Article 430 1. Taking by a competent authority
Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, 2. Observance of Due Process of Law
live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted 3. Taking for public use
thereon. 4. Payment of just compensation
Article 431 Effects of Expropriation
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights - Ownership is transferred only upon payment of just compensation
of a third person.
- There can be absolute or conditional expropriation
Fencing a land / tenement Just Compensation
- An act allowed by virtue of the right to use and abuse ones - The fair and full equivalent value of the land expropriated for the
property loss sustained
- LIMITATION: Owner must not deprive 3rd parties of their rights - Market value + Consequential Damages Consequential Benefits
provided by law (servitudes such as easements) - Market Value = Price where the owner not obliged to sell agrees
to sell to a buyer who purchases it but is not under necessity to
obtain it

Article 432 Elements of a Valid exercise of Police Power9

The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the 1. Interests requiring interference must be for the general public and
same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened not for a particular class
damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much 2. Means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of a
greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the purpose and not unduly oppressive
damage to him.

Definition of Doctrine of State of Necessity EXPROPRIATION SEIZURE

- In Criminal Law, this is a justifying circumstance. Therefore, no (EMINENT DOMAIN) (POLICE POWER)
criminal liability is imputed on the person but only civil liability PURPOSE For Public Use In the interest of health,
(damages) safety or security
Requisites of Doctrine of State of Necessity8 BASIS Based on Power of Based on Police Power
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists Eminent Domain
2. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it INDEMNITY Just Compensation No Compensation
3. There are no other means practical and less harmful to prevent the EFFECT Transfer of Ownership Taking control of property
same (From Private to Public)

SELF-HELP STATE OF NECESSITY

PURPOSE Prevent usurpation or Avoidance of a greater evil
physical invasion
Article 437
CAUSE OF Actual or threatened Threatened damage to
ACTION unlawful physical another is greater than the The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it,
and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations
invasion or usurpation damage arising to the owner
which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special
from the interference laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial
ACTION BY Counter by a Allow interference to occur navigation.
OWNER OR reasonable amount of
POSSESSOR force Rules on Surface and Sub-Surface Rights
1. Landowner owns the surface and of everything above and under it
INDEMNITY None From the person(s) benefited
2. He can exercise all his rights on these areas, with restrictions
FOR DAMAGES
Restrictions to enjoyment of Surface and Sub-surface Rights
1. Servitudes or easements
2. Special Laws
Article 435 3. Ordinances
No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for
4. Reasonable requirements of airspace
public use and always upon payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a 5. Principles on human relations
proper case, restore the owner in his possession. 6. Regalian Doctrine

Article 436
When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of
health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation,
unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified.

8 Art. 11, par. 4 (RPC)

9 US v. Toribio
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 12 85
 II. Ownership || J. Hidden Treasure, Definition, Rights of Owner/Finder || 2. Action to recover
Requisites in the definition of Hidden Treasure

CASE ON SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNER Article 439

Republic v CA, dela Rosa (1988) By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of
The rights over a piece of land are indivisible money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not
such that a piece of land cannot be half appear.
agricultural and half mineral. The owner of an Where can Hidden Treasures may be found
agricultural land wherein minerals are
1. Land
discovered does not automatically have the
2. Building
right to extract or utilize said minerals without
the permission of the State. 3. Other Property

A land that was being registered by dela Rosa was Rules on the Division of Hidden Treasure
opposed by the Benguet Consolidated, Atok Big Wedge If found by owner of property
FACTS:
and the Bureau of Forestry for being mineral lands and a - He owns it completely
forest land. If found by a stranger in GF + chance
Is the land alienable? - 50-50 with owner of property
ISSUES:
Who owns the property? If found by stranger in BF
YES. ATOK AND BCI OWNS IT. The land is alienable because
the rights vested on them because of the mineral claims - Owner of property owns it
granted to them before the classification as a forest If of interest to science and of the arts
RATIO:
reserve cannot be revoked by such act. Since ownership of - State to pay for the value using the rules above
the land includes those underneath and above it, the
Requisites in the definition of Hidden Treasure
companies have ownership to such property.
1. Hidden and Unknown deposit
2. Consists of money, jewelry and other precious objects
3. The lawful ownership does not appear

Article 438
Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which
it is found. Article 440
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is
or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or
finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. artificially.
If the things found be of interest to science and of the arts, the State may acquire
them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 13 85
 III. Right of Accession || A. Right of Accession with respect to what is produced by property || Concept of Accession
Rights and Obligations of Landowner and Owner of Materials

III. Right of Accession

- The extension of ownership over a thing to whatever is
incorporated thereto naturally or artificially Basic Principles
- This pertains to the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and not a mode of
Article 445
acquiring property
Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or
- Usually, the accessory loses its individuality and the principal is repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the
improved by the former following articles.

Article 446
All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense,
General Classification: unless the contrary is proved.
1. Discreta
2. Continua GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH
Accession Discreta: LAND OWNER No idea that his land is Allowing the BPS to the
1. Natural Fruits (LO) being used by others use of the land (when he
Honest belief that the disapproves or knows of
2. Civil Fruits
BPS had the right to the the absence of a right)
3. Industrial Fruits without protest
use of the land
Accession Continua (Immovables): BUILDER, Honest belief that he Knowledge of defect on
1. Accession Industrial PLANTER, owns the land and the the title of the land
2. Accession Natural SOWER (BPS) materials Knowledge of the absence
Accession Continua (Movables): of permission of the owner
of the materials
1. Adjunction / Conjunction
2. Mixture OWNER OF THE Ignorance of the BPS Allowing the BPS to the
MATERIAL (OM) acts use of the materials
3. Specification
without protest

Some Basic Concepts:

1. The Accessory follows the Principal
2. There should be no unjust enrichment at anothers expense - Rights between LO and BPS must be decided first before OMs
3. Accession exists only if the incorporation is impossible to separate - OMs BF loses the material UNLESS others had BF too
without serious damage / diminution in value of the principal - BF of one party neutralizes that of the other
4. Bad Faith = Damages - BF pays to GF damages
5. Bad Faith + Bad Faith = Good Faith - Presumptions:
o GF of all parties
o Works, sowing and planting were made by the owner of
the land
Article 441
To the owner belongs: Exception to the Art. 445:
(1) The natural fruits; Article 120 (FC)
(2) The industrial fruits; The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the
(3) The civil fruits. separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts
or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the
Article 442 original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:
Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any
products of animals. resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor. improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-
and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in
ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the
Article 443 improvement.
He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third
In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the
person in their production, gathering, and preservation.
reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership.
Article 444
Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits. Notes:
With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother,
- If Original Value of property is greater than the Increase in Value +
although unborn.
Cost of Improvement, the Whole thing belongs to the Spouse-
G.R.: Fruits go to the owner of the principal Owner
E: Otherwise provided by law/contract: o Otherwise, property belongs to the conjugal partnership
- Possession in GF (Goes to possessor) - This is subject to reimbursement by the receiving party
- Usufructuary (Goes to the usufruct) Rights and Obligations of Landowner and Owner of Materials
- Lease (Goes to the lessee) Article 447
- Antichresis (Goes to the creditor) The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings,
G.R.: Expenses of production, gathering and preservation is borne by the constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he
receiver of the fruits acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of
E: Does not apply to pending fruits. In such case, Possessor in BF is only the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without
injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being
entitled to reimbursement of necessary expenses
destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials
may remove them in any event, with a right to be indemnified for damages.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 14 85
 III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable || 1. Accession Industrial
Rights and Obligations of Landowner in GF and Builder in GF
Article 448
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith,
shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after
payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, OR to oblige the one
who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper
rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease
and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Right of Retention
- Right given to the BPS in GF upon election by LO of his option to
appropriate the improvements
- During this period, BPS retains possession, and the same is only
transferred upon full payment of the price
- Failure to pay by the LO = Civil Action for Specific Performance
- BPS cannot be compelled to pay rent nor be disturbed in
possession10
Applicability of the Rules
- The rules in this chapter will only apply in the absence of
stipulations regarding improvements built, planted or sown on
property
- The rules will not apply to Co-Ownership
- The rules apply to lands of the public dominion11
CASES ON RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LO AND BPS IN GF
Depra v Dumlao (1985)
The land owner has the 2 options in Art. 448.
This is because his right is older, and because,
by the principle of accession, he is entitled to
the ownership of the accessory thi ng.
Dumlao built a kitchen over a portion of Depras land.
Court found Dumlao to be a builder in GF. Lower court
FACTS:
ruled that there exists a force lease, and the Depra is
entitled to possession of the kitchen.
Was it proper for the lower courts to have ruled on a
ISSUE:
forced lease and on possession?
NO. Upon finding of a GF-GF relationship, it is the LO who
has the option of either appropriating such improvements
RATIO:
or to oblige the BPS to buy his land. Case was remanded to
determine the value of the property.
Del Campo v Abesia (1988)
Art.448 NCC cannot apply where a co -owner
builds, plants or sows on the land owned in
common. The co-owner is not a third person,
and the situation is governed by the rules of
co-ownership.
Co-Owners previously held the land in co-ownership.
Upon partition and possession of such parts, it was found
FACTS: out that Abesias house occupied a portion of land of Del
Campo. CFI ordered Abesia to remove and demolish part
of the house.
Does Art. 448 apply to the particular case of previous co-
ISSUE:
owners?
YES. Since the co-ownership has been dissolved already
RATIO: because of the partitioning, Art. 448 may now apply. LO
still has options to exercise.
10 San Diego v. Montesa, as cited in Sps. Nuguid v. CA
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
Applicability of the Rules
Sps Nuguid v CA, Pecson (2005)
The builder/possessor in good faith has a right
of retention and he cannot be compelled to
pay rentals during the period of retention. The
land owner cannot offset nor compensate the
necessary and useful expenses with the fruits
received by the BPS GF.
The right of retention is cons idered as one of
the measures devised by the law for the
protection of builders in GF
Pecsons land was forfeited and auctioned because of
non-payment of taxes. On it stood a 4-room apartment
that was not subject to the sale. The land eventually
ended up with Sps Nuguid, and they collected rents
thereon. Pecson was able to regain possession of the
FACTS:
building thru a previous case and, thru a compromise
agreement, agreed to sell the same to the Sps for P400k.
When P300k had already been paid, Pecson suddenly
demanded for the P1.3m that the Sps Nuguid had been
collecting as rent for the past 4 years.
ISSUE: Is Pecson entitled to the rents on the building?
YES. Since the Sps Nuguid chose to appropriate the
building, they must account for and deliver the rents to
RATIO:
Pecson because the latter, as the BPS GF, has a right of
retention to the building and therefore a right to its fruits.
Sps. Alviola v CA (1998)
Art 448 applies only to Immovables.
Petitioners built a copra dryer and a store on a portion of
land through tolerance. When the land was inherited by
FACTS: the Complainants, they were allowed to continue such
possession. Now they want the Petitioners to leave the
land.
ISSUE: WON the Complainants can oust Petitioner from the land?
YES, BUT ART. 448 DOES NOT APPLY SINCE THE
IMPROVEMENTS WERE MOVABLE. Though the Court
recognize that both parties were in BF, Art. 448
RATIO:
nevertheless was inapplicable, given that the
improvement was movable. Case for ejectment is then
proper.
Sarmiento v Agana (1984)
Sps. Valentino built a house on a lot, which their mother-
F A C T S : in-law told them was hers. However, it belonged to the
Petitioner.
ISSUE: WON the Sps. Valentino were Builders in GF?
YES. They are in GF because as far as they knew, the land
was owned by Ernie's mother-in-law who, having stated
they could build on the property, could reasonably be
expected to later on give them the land. However, since
R A T I O : Sarmiento did not exercise any of the two options, she
cannot now be granted the remedy she wants (remotion:
removal of the house). Sarmiento is entitled to remotion
only when after having chosen to sell her land, the Ernie
fails to pay the same.
11 Insular Government v. Aldecoa
15 85

Sps Benitez v CA, Sps Macapagal (1997)
The option is to sell, not to buy, option with LO
Sps Benitez lived on a parcel of land. Sps Macapagal came,
built on the adjacent land, sued because it was found the
portion of the Benitez house was encroaching on their lot,
FACTS:
later compromised. Sps Macapagal then bought the other
adjacent land and, after finding again that there is also
encroachment, now sued for ejectment.
WON possession of the said lot can be recovered through a
ISSUE:
UD case?
YES. UD is proper in this case because it was filed within 1
year after the demand for the Sps. Benitez to remove the
RATIO: improvement was sent. He cannot be forced to buy or sell
the property, as the option is to be exercised by the LO,
not by the BPS.
Rosales v Castelltort (2005)
The good faith ceases or is legally interrupted
from the moment defects in the title are made
known to the possessor, by extraneous evidence
or by suit for recovery of the property by the
true owner. If the LO chooses to buy the
building, he is only obliged to reimburse the
value during the GF period. If he decides to
sell the land, rent starts at appraisal and stops
upon transfer of ownership
Respondents mistakenly built on a wrong lot because of
FACTS: geodetic engineers errors. Petitioner asked them to stop
the construction and to demolish the house.
WON Castelltort was in GF?
ISSUES:
When will his GF cease?
YES. He was in GF because of his reliance on the results of
RATIO: the survey. His GF continued until he was notified about
the error in his building of a house in anothers property.
Rights and Obligations of Landowner in GF and Builder in BF
Article 449
He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built,
planted or sown without right to indemnity.
Article 450
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith
may demand the demolition of the work, OR that the planting or sowing be removed,
in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who
built, planted or sowed; OR he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of
the land, and the sower the proper rent.
Article 451
In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from
the builder, planter or sower.
Article 452
The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the
necessary expenses of preservation of the land.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable ||
Rights and Obligations of landowner and Owner of the Materials
CASES ON RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LO IN GF AND BPS IN BF
Kilario v CA, Pada (2000)
A partition on a private document is valid and
need not be registered. Possession by mer e
tolerance carries with it the implied promise to
vacate upon demand. As such, there can never
be good faith.
Some of Jacintos heirs sued to eject the heirs of Feliciano,
Jacintos stepbrother, whom he allowed to occupy his lot
by mere tolerance. The lot has already been partitioned
FACTS:
extrajudicially 44 yrs. prior to the suit. The other Jacinto
heirs donated land with the Coconut Trees to Felicianos
heirs to stymie the ejectment suit.
ISSUE: Were the Petitioners builders in GF?
NO. Mere tolerance gave them knowledge that their
occupation of the premises may be terminated at any
time. Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty by sheer
RATIO:
tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith.
The partition being valid, the subsequent donation is void
because the other Jacinto heirs are no longer co-owners.
Florentino v Supervalue (2007)
A lessee can never be a possessor in good faith
because he is not unaware of any flaw in his
title.
Florentino was occupying a stall in SM. Petitioner was in
repeated violation of the contract, which prompted SM to
FACTS: not renew anymore. SM took hold of all the property of
Florentino. Florentino files a suit to recover the property
and the deposit.
Is Florentino entitled to the deposit?
ISSUE: Is Florentino also entitled to reimbursement for
improvements on the stall property?
NO TO BOTH. The contract had a forfeiture clause but this
was still tempered by the court. To be entitled to
reimbursement for improvements, the petitioner must be
considered a builder in GF. In this case, since Florentino
RATIO:
was a lessee, there can be no GF. And since she cannot be
considered a builder in GF Supervalue may appropriate
the improvements introduced on the leased premises
without any obligation to reimburse the petitioner.
Landowner in BF and Builder in BF
Article 453
If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed
on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of
one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act
was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.
Article 454
When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded
in good faith, the provisions of article 447 shall apply.
Rights and Obligations of landowner and Owner of the Materials
Article 455
If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad
faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the
event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article
450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter
or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and
labor.
16 85
 III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable || Summary of Rights and Obligations of LO, BPS and OM
Rights and Obligations of landowner and Owner of the Materials

OM has preferential right*

LO (BPS) OM*
Good Faith Good Faith
Right/s Right/s
Appropriate material in exchange for value Right to value of improvements
Right to remove material without injury
Obligation/s
Pay value of the material
Good Faith Bad Faith
Right/s Right/s
Options: No right to remove
Appropriate material [#1] No right to value of materials
Right to remove [#2]
Right to indemnity
Obligation/s
Pay damages
Bad Faith Good Faith
Right/s Right/s
Appropriate material in exchange for value Right to value of improvements
Absolute right to remove
Right to indemnity for damages
Obligation/s
Pay value of material + damages
Pay damages if OM wants to remove
Bad Faith Bad Faith
Treat as both in good faith
LO has preferential right*
LO* BPS (OM)
Good faith Good faith
Right/s Right/s
Options: [#1] Right to reimbursement (necessary and useful expenses)
Appropriate improvement upon payment [#1] [#1] Right of retention until paid
Compulsory Sale [#2] Not required to pay rent during right of retention
Compulsory Rent [if value of land >>> improvement]
------------------------------
Right to remove only if BPS fails to pay [#2]
Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay necessary and useful expenses [#1] Pay value of land or rent [#2]
Good faith Bad faith
Right/s Right/s
Options: Reimbursement for necessary expenses only
Acquire improvement without paying indemnity [#1] No right to value of materials
Demolition/Restoration at expense of BPS [#2]
Sell to BP, or Rent to S [#3]
Collect damages
Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay necessary expenses to BPS Pay damages
Remove improvement upon order of LO
Bad faith Good faith
Right/s Right/s
Appropriate improvement upon reimbursement Absolute right to remove
Right to reimbursement of necessary and useful expenses, if
Obligation/s appropriated by owner
Pay necessary and useful expenses + damages Right to indemnity for damages
Bad faith Bad faith
Treat as both in good faith

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 17 85
 III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable || Summary of Rights and Obligations of LO, BPS and OM
Rights and Obligations of landowner and Owner of the Materials

LO BPS OM
Only one is in bad faith Option usually belongs to LO except if LO is in bad faith, then option is with OM

Good faith Good faith Good faith

Right/s Right/s Right/s
Options: Right to reimbursement of necessary and Collect value of materials primarily from BPS
[#1] Appropriate improvements useful expenses [#1] [subsidiarily from LO if BPS insolvent]
[#2] Compulsory sale to BPS / Compulsory Right of retention for necessary and useful Remove only if without injury
rent [if land value >>> than improvement] expenses
Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay value of improvement + necessary exp. Pay value of land or rent to LO [#2]
[#1] Pay value of materials to OM
Subsidiarily liable to OM
Good faith Good faith Bad faith
Right/s Right/s Right/s
Options: Right to reimbursement [#1] None: Lose the materials without right to
[#1] Appropriate improvements Right of retention for necessary and useful indemnity
[#2] Compulsory sale to BPS / Compulsory expenses (Art. 546)
rent [if land value >>> than improvement] Appropriate materials
Collect damages from OM
Obligation/s Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay value of improvement [#1] Pay value of land/rent [#2] Pay damages to BPS

Good faith Bad faith Good faith

Right/s Right/s Right/s
Options: Recover necessary expenses (Art 452, 443) Collect value of materials:
[#1] Acquire improvements No right to indemnity - Loses improvements LO or BPS [#1]
[#2] Demolition/Restoration at expense of (Art 452) unless LO sells land BPS [#2, #3]
BPS Right to recover useful expenses if he pays Remove materials in any event if BPS acquires
[#3] Sell to BP or Rent to S the OM first (Art. 455) improvements (Art 447)
------------------------------------- Collect damages from BPS
---------------
Collect damages from BPS Obligation/s
Obligation/s Pay value of materials to OM
Pay necessary expenses to BPS Pay damages to OM/LO
Subsidiarily liable to OM
Bad faith Good faith Good faith
Right/s Right/s Right/s
Appropriate improvements upon reimbursing May remove improvements Absolute Right to remove materials in any
BPS Be indemnified for damages in any event (Art case
454, 447) Collect value of materials primarily from BPS
[subsidiarily from LO (Art 447, 455)]
Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay necessary and useful expenses to BPS (in Pay value of material to OM
case of appropriation)
Pay damages to BPS
Subsidiarily liable to OM (Art 454, 447, 455)

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 18 85
 III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable || Summary of Rights and Obligations of LO, BPS and OM
Rights and Obligations of landowner and Owner of the Materials

LO BPS OM
Only one is in good faith Option is with the only one who is in good faith

Good faith Bad faith Bad faith

Right/s Right/s Right/s
Options: Recover necessary expenses for preservation Recover value only from BPS (as if both in GF)
[#1] Acquire improvements of land If BPS acquires improvements, remove
[#2] Demolition/Restoration at expense of Loses improvements without right to materials if feasible without injury (Art 447)
BPS indemnity from LO (Art 452) unless LO sells
[#3] Sell to BP or Rent to S land
------------------------------------- Obligation/s
--------------- May be liable to LO for consequential
Collect damages from BPS Obligation/s damages
Pay value of land or rent to LO [#3]
Obligation/s Pay damages to LO
Pay necessary expenses to BPS (Art 449-451) Return/Pay value of materials to OM

Bad faith Bad faith Good faith

Right/s Right/s Right/s
[#1] Appropriate improvements Right to reimbursement from LO [#1] Absolute Right to remove materials in any
[#2] Compulsory sale to BPS / Compulsory Right to retention for necessary expenses event (Art 447, 455)
rent [if land value >>> than improvement] Collect value of materials primarily from BPS
[subsidiarily from LO]
Obligation/s Collect damages from BPS
Obligation/s Pay value of land or rent to LO [#2]
Pay value of improvement [#1] Pay value of materials to OM
Subsidiarily liable to OM Pay damages to OM

Bad faith Good faith Bad faith

Right/s Right/s Right/s
Acquire improvements upon payment to BPS Indemnity for damages from both parties No right - No indemnity; loses materials (Art
Remove improvements in any event (Art 454, 449)
447)

Obligation/s Obligation/s
Pay value of improvement to BPS + damages Pay damages to BPS
Pay damages in case BPS decides to remove
Bad faith Bad faith Bad faith
Treat as all in good faith

Notes:
IN this trilateral relationship, the relationship between LO and BPS is the same as in Table 2. The variation only pertains to right and obligations of LO/BPS to OM. If
you add OM to the picture:
1. Payment for value of material
- OM in good faith [regardless of good faith or bad faith of LO and BPS]
LOs obligation: + subsidiary liability to OM [payment of value of material]
BPS obligation: + obligation to pay value of material
- OM in bad faith [regardless of good faith or bad faith of LO and BPS]
LOs obligation: no subsidiary liability to OM
BPS obligation: no obligation to pay value of material
2. Payment for damages
- OM in good faith entitled to indemnity from BPS
- OM in bad faith pay damages to BPS or LO [in case both BPS and OM are in bad faith]

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 19 85
 III. Right of Accession || B. Right of Accession with respect to immovable || 2. Accession Natural
Avulsion

Reynante v CA (1992)
Alluvion does not automatically become part of
Kinds of Accession Natural: the registered land. It is therefore susceptible
1. Alluvium to acquisitive prescription by third parties.
2. Avulsion
3. Change of Course of River Reynante was a tenant of the fishponds of the Landowner.
4. Formation of Islands He has constructed a nipa hut and has been taking care of
the palms on a lot. The heirs agreed to pay Reynante to
Alluvium FACTS:
get all his rights on the fishpond for P200k. Years later,
Article 457 they now want Reynante to leave the area where his hut is
To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they built.
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. Is the land Reynante has been occupying owned by the
ISSUE:
heirs?
Article 458
NO. According to the survey, the lot with the palm
The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by
the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary
plantation is not part of the fishpond area, and thus part
floods of the alienable and disposable lands. Though this land is
an accretion to the heirs property, it does not
RATIO:
automatically become part of the same. Being alienable
Definition of Alluvium: lands, it is subject to prescription. Since Reynante has
- Soil that imperceptibly and gradually deposits on the land been in possession of the lot for more than 50 years, he
- Accretion/Alluvion = process of depositing alluvium now has rights to register such land.

Effects of Accretion: Vda de Nazareno v CA (1996)

- Accretion is owned by receiving estate Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature.
- The accretion of sawdust from logging
Requisites of Alluvium: operations upstream is not natural.
1. Deposit is gradual & imperceptible A portion of the banks of the Cagayan River was a dried up
FACTS:
2. Because of current of river creek as a result of sawdust being dumped in the river.
3. Land receiving must be adjacent to the river ISSUE: Is the land alienable?
NO. In order for a river/creek to become part of the
Notes: alienable lands, the drying up must have been due to the
- River, not sea RATIO: action of the waters or current of the river/creek. In cases
- Lake also possible12 of manual reclamation of land, government owns the
land.
- River must continue to exist
- Soils original identity is unknown Avulsion
Article 459
Reasoning for Ownership Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its
bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land
- Compensation for erosions by the riparian owners lands
to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he
- Owner of contiguous lands are the ones who can utilize the removes the same within two years.
increment better
Definition of Avulsion:
Notes:
- Riparian owner does not need to make express acts of possession - A known portion of land gets transferred from one estate to
o But need to register another
- Soil from the sea = belongs to the state - A.k.a. Delayed Accession
- Human intervention = does not necessarily belongs to the owner of
the land Effects of Avulsion:
- G.R.: Original estate retains ownership
CASES ON ALLUVIUM - E: Failure to remove it within 2 years OR abandonment
Bagaipo v CA, Lozano (2000) o Abandonment = Neither person wants the land,
If there is any doubt between alluvion and owned by the state
avulsion, the disputable presumption is that
there was alluvion. Elements of a River
Bagaipo and Lozano are owners of land opposite each - Water
other (Davao River in the middle). Bagaipo claims that - Bed
FACTS:
Lozano unlawfully occupied the old riverbed, which belong - Banks
to Bagaipo (river allegedly divided the land into 3 parts).
ISSUE: To whom does the portion of land in issue belong to? Requisites of Avulsion:
LOZANO. No proof that the river suddenly changed its
1. Current of river, creek or torrent segregates land
course nor that there was avulsion of land. The decrease in
RATIO: 2. It is a known portion of land from an estate
Bagaipos and increase in Lozanos were caused by erosion
3. This known portion gets transferred to another estate
and alluvion, respectively.

ALLUVIUM AVULSION
Gradual Sudden / Abrupt
Imperceptible Identifiable / Verifiable
Belongs to receiving estate Belongs to original estate

12 Meneses v. Quisumbing
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 20 85
 III. Right of Accession || C. Right of Accession with respect to Movable Property || Main Types of Accession as to Movables:
Mixture

Ownership is presumed to be with Need to prove that portion of land o NO requirement if river is navigable
receiving estate is part of original estate

Uprooted or standing trees Formation of Islands

Article 460 Article 464
Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on
the land upon which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers belong to the State.
months. If such owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering
them or putting them in a safe place. Article 465
Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in
Notes:
non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks
- If trees are still attached to the land, rules on Avulsion will be used nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle
of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island
Change of Course of River thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the
Article 462 nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, opens a new bed through a Notes:
private estate, this bed shall become of public dominion.
- Easily accessible to the nearest margin
Abandoned River bed, Requisites - In floatable rivers, there is public interest in commerce
Article 461
River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the CASE ON FORMATION OF ISLANDS
waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course Jagualing v CA, Eduave (1991)
in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value shall
The preferential right by the landowner to the
not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed. accretions to his property is, under Article 465,
also granted the owners of the land located in
1. Must be sudden (so old bed is identifiable)
the margin nearest the formed island for the
2. Change is permanent reason that they are in the best position to
3. The change is through natural causes cultivate and attend to the exploitation of the
same.
Notes:
Eduave owned a parcel of land, which was the subject of
- If the river just dried up, abandoned riverbed belongs to the state erosion and accretion from the river. On 1964, an island
- This is the case of transferring of riverbed was formed on the non-navigable river because of the
- Transfer of ownership of owner to the old bed rivers branching off to the estate. Jagualing alleges that
- If the government reverts back the course of river, no FACTS: they have been in possession of the island for 15 years
compensation. already, evidenced by their plantation. Eduave claims that
o Govt cannot be restrained they have been in continued possession because they have
o Govt cannot be compelled been paying the land taxes, placing monuments and
extracting sand and gravel (which was registered).
CASE ON CHANGE OF COURSE OF RIVER / ABANDONMENT ISSUE: Who has ownership over the island?
EDUAVE. Based on the evidence, it is clear that Eduave has
Baes v CA (1993)
been in continuous possession of the land (by virtue of Art.
If the riparian owner is entitled t o 463 and his acts of ownership). Also, it is by petitioners
compensation for the damage to or loss of his RATIO:
admission that he has been occupying the said land in the
property due to natural causes, there is all the concept of caretakers, and 15 years is insufficient to
more reason to compensate him when the obtain ownership of alienable lands.
change in the course of the river is effected
through artificial means.
The Sps. Baes owned a property where an artificial river
bed was created. The government compensated them by
giving the Spouses a parcel of land with exactly the same
FACTS:
area. The Spouses then started to occupy the old filled-up 1. Adjunction
bed, claiming that Art. 461 should apply to them, and 2. Mixture
therefore, they have the right to the old bed. 3. Specification
Is Art. 461 applicable?
ISSUES: Adjunction/Conjunction
Can the Spouses occupy the old riverbed?
ART. 461 IS APPLICABLE BUT THE SPOUSES CANNOT Definition of Adjunction:
OCCUPY THE OLD RIVERBED. Since the taking was by the - Union of materials of different owners
government, the government should compensate them. - Separation then becomes impossible without injury
RATIO: Art. 461 is applicable insofar as the Spouses should be - But each component retains its own nature
compensated. But to give them ownership over the old o e.g. Varnish on chair
riverbed would amount to unjust enrichment and double
compensation.
Different kinds of Adjunction:
1. Inclusion (jewel on ring)
Division of River into Branches 2. Soldering (Adjoining two or more metals)
Article 463 a. Ferruminatio (same metals)
Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or b. Plumbatura (diff. metals)
part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it 3. Escritura (writing)
if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. 4. Pintura (painting)
Results: 5. Weaving
- Some parts of the original estate is isolated, other parts may be
pushed away by tides
o Owner still retains ownership
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 21 85
 III. Right of Accession || C. Right of Accession with respect to Movable Property || 1. Test to determine which is the principal and which is accessory
Summary of Rules of Mixture

Mixture If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the knowledge and
Definition of Mixture: without the objection of the other, their respective rights shall be determined as
though both acted in good faith.
- Union of materials of different owners
- Separation is impossible without injury Summary of Rules of Adjunction
- The components lose their identity Adjunction in GF by either owner
G.R.: Accessory follows Principal
Different kinds of Mixture: o Accessory owner gets indemnified
1. Commixtion (Solids) E: If Accessory is more precious
2. Confusion (Liquids) o Such owner may demand separation, even if principal
suffers SOME injury only
Specification - Expenses shouldered by the owner who caused the adjunction
Definition of Specification:
- Transformation of anothers material through labor, skill or Adjunction by Principal Owner in BF
industry Option by Accessory Owner:
- There is a change in characteristics or identity of the original thing - To recover value + damages
- LABOR = Principal; MATERIAL = Accessory - To demand separation (even if it destroys P) + damages

Adjunction by Accessory Owner in BF

- He loses the accessory
Article 467 - He is liable for damages
The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which
the other has been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection.
Article 471
Article 468 Whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an
If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two indemnity, he may demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and
things incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so value, and in all other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof, according
considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater volume. to expert appraisal.
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the
Article 475
board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.
In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly appreciated.
The PRINCIPAL is (in order): [ IVVM ]
1. Intended thing to which the other has been united as an ornament Indemnity thru either:
OR for use/perfection - Delivery of a thing equal in kind and value
2. Thing with Greater Value - Money value as appraised by an expert
3. Thing with Greater Volume
4. Thing with Greater Merits13
Special Rule Article 472
- For paintings, sculptures, writings, printed matter, engraving and If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if
lithographs the mixture occurs by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable
without injury, each owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to
o The board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment is
him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
considered as the accessory
o RATIONALE: What was written, etc. is of greater Article 473
importance. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different
kinds are mixed or confused, the rights of the owners shall be determined by the
For those concerning 3 or more things
provisions of the preceding article.
- Only 1 is the principal (use the test above). The others will be If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the
deemed as accessories. thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay indemnity
for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed.

Summary of Rules of Mixture

Article 466 Mixture by will of both owners OR by accident / chance
Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith,
- Stipulation will govern first
united in such a way that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing
acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value. - Each acquires an interest in proportion to the value of their
material
Article 469 - Co-ownership exists
Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners
may demand their separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the
Mixture by Owner in GF / Agent
other, is much more precious than the principal thing, the owner of the former may - Same as above (co-ownership)
demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been incorporated may
suffer some injury.
Mixture by Owner in BF
Article 470 - He loses all rights to his material + Damages
Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith,
he shall lose the thing incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify the
owner of the principal thing for the damages he may have suffered.
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of
the accessory thing shall have a right to choose between the former paying him its
value or that the thing belonging to him be separated, even though for this purpose
it be necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases, furthermore, there
shall be indemnity for damages.

13 Manresa
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 22 85
 III. Right of Accession || C. Right of Accession with respect to Movable Property || 4. Rules in Specification
Summary of Rules of Specification

CASE ON RULES IN MIXTURE

Siari Valley v Lucasan (1955) Article 474
Petitioner alleged that there was a commixtion of their One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to
cattles. Lucasan argues that though there was make a thing of a different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his
commixtion, Siari already recovered the cattles. own, indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.
FACTS: If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value, its
Petitioner asserts that Filemon was in BF because he was
preventing them from getting the cattle back and for owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying
indemnity for the value of the work, or demand indemnity for the material.
selling some of the cattle held in trust.
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have
ISSUE: Is Filemon in BF, therefore losing his share? the right to appropriate the work to himself without paying anything to the maker, or
YES. According to the evidence presented, there is no to demand of the latter that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the
doubt that Filemon caused the commixtion (by driving the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material cannot
cattle to his estate). His harassment of Siaris employees, appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons,
R A T I O : the threats of prosecution, re-branding of some of the is considerably more than that of the material.
cattles and non-registration of the sales are just some of
Summary of Rules of Specification
the proof that Filemon was indeed guilty of BF. Because of
Specification by Maker in GF
this, he loses his share in the commixtion, plus damages.
G.R.: Appropriation of new thing
o Indemnity to owner of material
E: If value of material is more precious than the new thing, Material
Owner can EITHER:
o Get the new thing + compensation for labor
o Demand indemnity for materials

Specification by Maker in BF
G.R.: Owner of Material can EITHER:
o Appropriate the new thing without compensation for
labor
o Demand indemnity for the material + damages
E: If new thing is more valuable for artistic/scientific reasons
o No option for appropriation

Material Owner in BF
- He loses the material + damages

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 23 85
 IV. Quieting of Title || A. Definition, Nature and Extent of Action || 4. Rules in Specification
The action does not apply to:

IV. Quieting of Title

Requisites to be able to institute action
1. There is an Equitable or Legal title to the property in question
Article 476 2. There is a document, deed, record, proceeding, claim that is
Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason apparently valid
of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently 3. Such instrument is in truth invalid, void, voidable, unenforceable,
valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
extinguished, terminated, barred, or prejudicial to the title of the
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title. party etc.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein. G.R.: Action to Quiet is imprescriptible
Article 477
E: If plaintiff is not in actual possession OR if plaintiff is in actual
The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property
possession, upon knowledge of an adverse claim against them
which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property. * Adverse possession can transfer ownership through extraordinary prescription (30 yrs.)
or ordinary prescription (10 yrs.)
Article 478
Extinguishment of Right to File Action
There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the
contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or - When the title or liens have lost their force / failed to be operative
has been barred by extinctive prescription. because of failure to enforce
- Being barred by limitations or by delay in enforcement
Cloud on title - By laches
- A semblance of title (legal or equitable) which legally appears valid
but in fact is unfounded
- Must be prima facie substantial
- The invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument must be proven Article 479
by extrinsic evidence The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the
latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff's
Definition of Quieting of Title benefit.
- A remedy or form of proceeding originating in equity jurisprudence
- Purpose is to adjudicate on the claim of title, to have him forever Primary Objective
free from an danger of hostile claims - To prevent unjust enrichment
Types of Action:
Legal Title
- Removal of a Cloud
- Prevention of a Cloud - Either full or naked ownership

Nature of Action Equitable Title

- Quasi in rem, since they are not technically suits neither in rem nor
in personam, but against a particular person in respect of the res - Interest in the property short of ownership

Property affected The action does not apply to:

- Only real property may be the subject of an action to quiet title or - Questions involving interpretation of documents14
to remove a cloud - Written or oral assertions of claim
o Unless made in a legal proceeding
Extent of Action o Or unless asserted that an instrument is not what it
Action to Quiet Title purports to be
- An action to put an end to vexatious litigation - Boundary disputes
- Plaintiff asserts his own estate and declares generally that - To deeds by strangers to the title unless purporting to convey the
defendant has no foundation and questions the nature of the property of the plaintiff
adverse claim - To instruments invalid on their face
- Where the validity of the instrument involves a pure question of
Action to Remove a Cloud law
- An action to procure the cancellation, delivery, release of an
instrument, encumbrance or claim on a title, which may be used CASES ON QUIETING OF TITLE
against the current owner Titong v CA, Laurio (1993)
- Plaintiff not only declares his own title, but also avers the source In an action for Quieting of Title, it is essential
and nature of defendants claim, pointing out defects and prays that the plaintiff alle ge that an instrument,
that it be declared void record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding has
beclouded his title. Otherwise, the Court must
Prayers in an Action to remove Cloud dismiss it outright.
- Identify ownership and possession Titong filed an action for Quieting of Title against Laurio
- Put things in their proper place allegedly because Laurios laborers intruded into his land
thrice to plow his land. Titong did not allege that an
Kinds of Property covered by Quieting:
FACTS: instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
- Immovables beclouded his title over the property. TC and CA ruled in
- Vessels and other Vehicles favor of Laurio, declaring him as the true owner. This is a
- Stocks (industrial, commercial, etc.) petition for certiorari filed by Titong.
ISSUES: Should the action for Quieting of Title prosper?
NO. Essentially, Titongs action is not Quieting of Title but
RATIO: Forcible Entry. The trial court therefore should have
dismissed it outright.

14 Trustees of Schools v. Wilson

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 24 85

Caragay-Layno v CA, Estrada (1984)
Mere possession of a Torrens title is NOT
conclusive of a holders true ownership of all
the property described therein.
The cause of action of a lawful possessor and
owner for reconveyance is in the nature of an
action to quiet title. Therefore it is
imprescriptible.
Juliana and Mariano were 1st cousins. Mariano borrowed
Julianas tax declaration of her parcel of land on the
pretext that he was going to use it as collateral for a loan.
The truth: He registered the OCT over the land in his name
FACTS: by using the tax cert. When the bastard died, his
administrator discovered that Juliana occupied the parcel
so he sued to recover possession. The administrator
claimed that Julianas right thereto had already
prescribed.
Has Julianas right prescribed?
ISSUES: Is the possession of a Torrens title conclusive as to true
ownership of all the properties described therein?
NO. Julianas undisturbed possession for over 52 years
gave her a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of
equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a
3rd party. Moreover, Mariano never took interest in the
RATIO: land for 20 years since he registered it. Juliana, therefore,
had been in actual, continuous and open possession of it
to the exclusion of all and sundry. Fraud was employed in
the issuance of the OCT, Juliana being an unlettered
woman.
Coronel v IAC, Merlan (1987)
A lawful possessor and owner of a lot in
question may bring an action to quiet title at
any time (imprescriptible). The statutory period
of prescription may be said to have commenced
to run against them only upon knowledge of a
claim adverse to their own.
Bernabela Lontoc had 3 heirs: Bernardino (B), Jose (J) and
Daniel (D). B&D sold their shares and, thru a series of
sales, ended up with Mariano. Mariano reconstituted the
TCT, but the new TCT made no mention of Js share.
Mariano then sold the lot to Coronel. Coronel sued to
FACTS:
recover the possession of the land which J was currently
occupying. J counterclaimed to recover the 1/3 share.
Coronel claims that Js claim to his 1/3 share is barred by
laches since 25 years have already lapsed since B&D sold
their shares.
ISSUE: Has Js claim prescribed?
NOT YET. J had undisturbed possession for more than 25
years, and this gave him a continuing right to seek the
aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and the effect of his own
title. His right to seek quieting of title accrued only when
RATIO: he was made aware of Coronels adverse claim.
Therefore, Js action has not yet prescribed. Coronel is an
IPV, yes, but Js share was mistakenly included.
Therefore, the iron-clad application of the principle that
full faith and credit is to be attached to a Torrens
certificate is not applicable.
GENERAL RULE: Full faith can be given to what is written
on the Torrens title. An IPV therefore may rely on the
REGALADO:
title to establish his good faith. EXCEPT: If there is fraud
or mistake.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
IV. Quieting of Title || C. Rights and Obligations of Plaintiff || 4. Rules in Specification
The action does not apply to:
Sps. Rumarate v Hernandez (2006)
Requisites for an action to Quiet Title to
prosper:
(1) The plaintiff has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of the action
(2) The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title is shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy
Santiago orally donated a parcel of land to Rumarate in
1929. Rumarate and his heirs have since been cultivating
the land (up to 2006!). In 1964, Santiago sold the same
FACTS: land to Sps Hernandez. Rumarate sued for
Reconveyance of real property and/or Quieting of Title
w/ damages. Sps. Hernandez claims that Santiago had
been in possession for more than 30 years.
ISSUE: Who is entitled to ownership of the property?
RUMARATE. Even though the oral donation of the land
was void, Rumarate had been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession for more than 30
RATIO: years. Acquisitive prescription has therefore set in (1st
requisite). As such, Santiagos sale to Sps. Hernandez is
void (2nd requisite). Santiagos short-lived occupation (3
yrs.) after he donated did not vest him title.
SC, as a court of equity, is very flexible when it comes to
REGALADO: Quieting of Title.
Sps. Calacala v Republic (2005)
In order for an action for quieting of title to
prosper, the plaintiff must rely solely on the
strength of his own title and not on the
weakness of the defendants title.
Sps Calacala offered their land as property bond in favor
of an accused in a criminal case. The SOB did not appear so
the land was levied and sold to PH. Sps Calacala sued to
FACTS:
Quiet their Title. The sps claim that the Republic failed to
secure a certificated of final sale and to obtain a writ of
possession within 10 years.
ISSUES: Will the action for Quieting of Title prosper?
NO. They have no legal title. They based their suit solely
RATIO: on the Republics failure to secure certain documents.
Therefore their suit must fail.
Sps. Pingol v CA, Heirs of Donasco (1993)
If an action for specific performance has for its
real and ultimate basis the ownership coupled
with the possession of property, and where,
under the circumstances, no enforcement of the
contract is needed since the sale had already
been consummated by the delivery of the
possession, but the sellers ref usal to recognize
the sale casts a doubt on the plaintiffs
ownership, the suit is in effect an action for
Quieting of Title.
Pingol sold a parcel of land to Donasco on an installment
basis (1969). Donasco died and his heirs tried to complete
payments but Pingol refused and instead asked for a
FACTS:
higher price. The heirs sued for Specific Performance and
damages (1988). Pingol claims that it was a contract to sell
and that the action has already prescribed.
Has the action for specific performance and damages
ISSUES:
prescribed?
NO. Here, that a cloud has been cast on Donascos title is
indubitable. Pingol adamantly refused to accept the
tender of payment and steadfastly insisted that the
obligation to transfer title had been rendered ineffective.
RATIO:
It is not necessary that the buyer has the absolute title, an
equitable title is sufficient to clothe him with personality
to bring an action to quiet title. The action, therefore, has
not prescribed.
25 85
 V. Ruinous Buildings and Trees in danger of falling || A. Who can be the complainants? || 4. Rules in Specification
The action does not apply to:

V. Ruinous Buildings and Trees in danger of

falling
Article 482
If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner
shall be obliged to demolish it OR to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it
from falling.
If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities
may order the demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take
measures to insure public safety.

Article 483
Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the land
or tenement of another or to travellers over a public or private road, the owner of
the tree shall be obliged to fell and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done
at his expense by order of the administrative authorities.

1. Owner of property adjacent to the dangerous construction

2. Person who must have to pass by necessity in the immediate
vicinity15

1. Maintain the stability/integrity of the structures he owns

2. If the structure is in danger of falling, either:
a. Destroy it; or
b. Execute the necessary works to prevent it from falling

15
Manresa
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 26 85
 VI. Co-Ownership || A. Definition, Requisites, Characteristics || Definition of Co-Ownership:
As to Rights of Co-Owners

VI. Co-Ownership
As to Subject Matter
- Co-ownership of an undivided thing
Article 484
- Co-ownership of an undivided right
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs
to different persons. As to Source
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by - Contractual Co-ownership
the provisions of this Title.
- Non-contractual Co-ownership
As to Rights of Co-Owners
- Tenancy in common
- State of ownership in which an undivided things is owned by 2 or
- Joint tenancy
more people
- Exercise of common dominion by two or more persons over a thing
not physically divided TENANCY IN COMMON* JOINT TENANCY
There is an ideal division There is no ideal division
Ability to dispose without consent Consent is necessary in disposition
1. Undivided thing/right of others
2. Rights of ownership belongs to different persons Heirs are successors-in-interest Co-owners are successors-in-
interest
Prescription runs against them Prescription does not run against
- Plurality of subjects the others
* We follow this rule
- Material indivision
- Each co-owner holds an ideal portion (definite in amount, not
necessarily known identity) CO-OWNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP
- Each co-owner has absolute control of his share No Legal Personality Legal Personality
- Co-owners must observe mutual respect with regard to the use, Several means of creation Only created through contract
enjoyment and preservation of the thing as a while Purpose: Collective enjoyment Purpose: Profit
- A co-owner is in essence a trustee for the others No Mutual representation Mutual representation possible
May not stipulate indivision for May be for more than 10 years
CASE ON CO-OWNERSHIP DEFINITION, REQUISITES AND more than 10 years (20 years for
CHARACTERISTICS testator/donor)
Pardell v. Bartolome (1991) Continues even if a co-owner dies Dissolves upon death of a partners
A co-owner may use the property owned in Consent not needed in disposal Consent needed in disposal
common, with the only limitation that he may not Profits must always depend on Profits may be stipulated
injure the interests of the other co-owners. proportionate share
Vicenta and Matilde, sisters, inherited 6 real properties but
only Matilde administered, repaired and improved them. CO-OWNERSHIP CPG
No partition was ever made. Vicenta sued her sister to
May arise by an ordinary contract Only possible through marriage
either pay the value of the property or recognize her as
FACTS: Sex is immaterial Need to have one male and one
owner over shares. Moreover Vicenta sought rent
from Matilde for residing in one of the properties. Gaspar, female
Matildes husband, has his office on the ground floor of May be more than 2 Only 2
said property. Profits are proportional to interest Usually 50-50 unless indicated in
ISSUE: Can Vicente get rent from Matilde and Gaspar? marriage settlement
ONLY TO THE OCCUPATION OF GASPAR. Matilde cannot be Death does not dissolve Death of either dissolves
compelled to pay rents because, as co-owner, she has a
RATIO:
legitimate right to occupy. But Gaspar is not a co-owner,
therefore he must pay rent.
Article 485
The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be
proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the
1. Law
contrary shall be VOID.
2. Contract The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal,
3. Succession unless the contrary is proved.
4. Chance
Notes:
5. Occupation
1. Share is proportional to the interest of each
2. Contrary stipulation is VOID
Law
3. Presumption of equal shares
- Provisions in the CC and FC (e.g. Void marriages)
Contract
- Mutual agreements between parties
Succession Article 486
Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in
- Intestate succession is co-ownership before partition
accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure
Chance the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it
- Commixtion/Confusion and hidden treasures according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by
Occupation agreement, express or implied.

- Hunting or Fishing (Synonymous with Contract)

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 27 85
 VI. Co-Ownership || E. Rights of each Co-Owner || Summary of Rights of Co-Owners to Common Property:
As to Rights of Co-Owners

Notes: CASES ON RIGHTS OF EACH CO-OWNER

1. Only to the purpose for which it is intended
2. Without prejudice to the interests of the co-ownership
3. Without preventing the other co-owners from making use thereof
according to their own rights
- The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement
EITHER express/implied
Article 493
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.
But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall
be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.
Article 494
No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may
demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share
is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time,
not exceeding ten years, shall be VALID. This term may be extended by a new
agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty
years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or
co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
Article 488
Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the
expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any
one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of
his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No
such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership.
Article 1620
A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all
the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the
alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may
only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in
common.
1. To USE it in accordance to the intended purpose
2. To SHARE in the benefits and charges in proportion to the interest
of each
3. To COMPEL the others to share in the expenses of preservation
4. To OPPOSE alterations made without the consent of all, even if
beneficial
5. To PROTEST against seriously prejudicial decision of the majority
6. To DEFEND the co-ownerships interest in Court.
7. To REDEEM within 30 days from written notice of sale of an
undivided share to a stranger
8. To DEMAND partition at any time
9. To BENEFIT from prescription
10. As regards co-ownership of a building by stories
a. To DEMAND proportional contribution for preservation
of the walls, roof and things used in common
b. Each story owner is to bear expenses of his floor
c. Stairs are to be maintained by the ones using them
d. Individual stories are not owned in common
1. FULL OWNERSHIP of his part and his share of the fruits and
benefits
2. He may SUBSTITUTE another person in its enjoyment except when
personal rights are involved
3. He may ALIENATE, encumber, dispose or his ideal share
4. He may RENOUNCE part of his interest to reimburse necessary
expenses incurred by another co-owner
Sps Abad v CA, Sps Dayap (1989)
A co-owner does not have a right to sell a
divided and definite part of the property
owned in common.
Aquino, Abad and 2 others contributed funds to buy land
in QC. Aquino was designated as assignee to conform w/
PHHC regulations. He executed an affidavit recognizing his
3 other co-owners. When Abad asked for a Deed of Sale so
that a title may be issued under his name, Aquino refused.
FACTS:
Abad sued to compel Aquino to recognize him and TC
granted. Aquino, sold the land to Sps Dayap and they
immediately tried to fence the land. Abad sued for an
injunction. By way of defense, Sps Dayap claim they are
Innocent Purchasers for Value (IPV).
ISSUE: Was the sale to the Sps. Dayap valid?
NO. A co-owner may not validly sell a physical portion of a
RATIO: land held in common. Rules on Builders in GF shall be
applied in this case.
Del Campo v CA, Heirs of Jose Regalado (2001)
The binding force of a contract must be
recognized as far as it is legally possible to do
so.
In a sale of a co-owner of a physical portion of
an undivided property held in common, the
buyer steps into the shoes of the seller as co -
owner and acquires a proportionate abstract
share in the property held in commo n.
If the transferee/co -owner of an undivided
portion of the land allows a co -owner to
occupy a definite portion thereof and does not
disturb the occupation for a period too long to
be ignored, the co-owner/possessor is in a
better condition or right tha n the transferee.
There is, therefore, partial partition which
entitles the possessor to the definite portion
occupied.
The 8 Bornales heirs were the co-owners of a 27k m2 lot, 3
of whom are Salome (owned share), Consorcia (1/4
share) and Alfredo (1/8 share). In 1940, Salome sold part of
her share in the lot to Soledad Daynolo. Soledad built a
house thereon. In 1948, Salome, Cosorcia and Alfredo sold
FACTS: 2.5k m2 of the lot to Regalado who subdivided and re-
titled the lot. Soledad mortgaged her lot to Regalado. This
would later be redeemed by Simplicio Distajo, one of
Soledads heirs. Distajo sold their lot to Sps Del Campo.
Sps Del Campo sued Regalado, claiming that they are the
owners.
Is the Salome-Soledad sale, which is a sale of a co-owner
of a physical portion of an undivided property held in
ISSUES:
common, valid?
How about the Salome/Consorcia/Alfredo-Regalado sale?
YES, INSOFAR AS THEY TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF
THEIR UNDIVIDED INTEREST THEREIN. The 1940 sale
made Soledad a co-owner with regard to Salomes aliquot
shares.
HE WAS GIVEN ONLY THE REMAINING PART OF THE
SHARE THE 3 CO-OWNERS HAD LEFT, BUT NOT OF THE
WHOLE PROPERTY. Salome could not have sold the whole
property to Regalado in 1948. This sale is valid only to the
RATIO:
extent that Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo may sell their
shares (10/16), and Regalado became a co-owner with
regard to those shares. Since Soledad and her successors-
in-interest have been in possession for 49 years, and since
Regalado knew that he did not have title to the entire lot
(remember: he accepted the Soledads mortgage, ergo
estopped by deed), Sps Del Campo now own the definite
portion they occupy.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 28 85
 VI. Co-Ownership || F. Consent required from Co-Owners || 1. Action in Ejectment
Liability for Illegal Alteration (Effects)

o If in favor of a co-owner: Consent of such co-owner is

SUMMARY OF CONSENT required
PRESERVATION One is enough
EJECTMENT One is enough
ADMINISTRATION Financial Majority Article 492
For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the
IMPROVEMENT/EMBELLISHMENT Financial Majority resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding.
OWNERSHIP ALL There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who
ALTERATION ALL represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership.
Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority be seriously
prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common, the court, at the
instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper,
including the appointment of an administrator.
Article 487 Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the
Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. remainder is owned in common, the preceding provision shall apply only to the part
owned in common.
Actions covered:
- Forcible Entry Who is the administrator?
- Unlawful Detainer - GR: All Co-Owners exercise this right
- Accion Publiciana - E: If the Court appoints an administrator
- Accion Reivindicatoria - A Co-Owner may delegate this right to an agent (rules on agency
- Quieting of Title applies)
- Replevin Characteristics of Acts of Administration/Management
Effect of Judgement - Those that do not involve an alteration
- Favorable: Benefits all - Those that may be renewed from time to time
- Adverse: Cannot prejudice their rights - Those that have transitory effects
- E: If co-owner has knowledge of such action, he is affected - Those that do not give rise to a real right
regardless of favorability - Those that do not affect the substance/nature of the thing
- Those for the common benefit of all the co-owners
CASE ON ACTION IN EJECTMENT When the minority may appeal decisions of the majority to the Court
Resuena v. CA, Borromeo (2005) - When an alteration is agreed upon
A co-owner has no capacity to assign or - There is no real majority
transmit a determinate portion of a property - When it is prejudicial to the rights of a co-owner
owned in common. Possession by mere tolerance
- When serious risk is incurred
comes with the implied promise to vacate upon
- When there is refusal to correct maladministration
demand. A co-owner may file a compl aint for
ejectment - When fraud is committed upon the minority

Borromeo and Sps Bascon are co-owners of a lot (Lot A).

The Resuenas occupy Lot A because, according to them,
Sps Bascon verbally assigned a portion of Lot A to them. Article 491
FACTS: None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in
Borromeo wanted to develop the property into a Beach
Resort so he demanded them to vacate and, when they the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom.
However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly
refused, sued for ejectment.
prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief.
Can Borromeo file an action for ejectment in behalf of the
ISSUE:
co-ownership? Definition of Alteration:
YES. Borromeo had an unqualified authority to bring an - Any change which is more or less permanent
action for ejectment. When the action is brought by one - Any change injurious to the thing / co-owners
RATIO: co-owner for the benefit of all, a favorable decision will
- Any change material in the use, destination or state of the thing
benefit them; but an adverse decision cannot prejudice
their rights. Liability for Illegal Alteration (Effects)
- He shall lose what he has spent
- Demolition can be compelled
- Any co-owner has the right to compel the others to contribute to - He will be liable for losses and damages
the expenses in preservation of the property - Whatever useful will belong to the co-ownership
- This is regardless of notification
o BUT he must notify if practicable
Necessary Expenses
- Taxes and expenses for the preservation of the thing
- Partition
- Not inclusive of those that for the production of benefits
- Loss or destruction
- Useful expenses not covered
- Merger of all the interests in a co-owner
How a Co-Owner exempt himself - Prescription (Adverse Possession)
- By renouncing his undivided share (express only) - Expropriation
o BUT this does not necessarily renounce his entire share
o Only possible if it will not prejudice the co-ownership
Renunciation
- Rules on dacion en pago applies
o Consent of creditor is required
o If in favor of creditor: No need for consent of co-owners

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 29 85

CASES ON TERMINATION OF CO-OWNERSHIP
Paulmitan v CA, Paulmitan (1992)
Redemption by a co-owner does not terminate co -
ownership. Neither does it give t itle to said co-owner.
But a co-owner who redeems property owned in
common is entitled to reimbursement for the
redemption price in proportion to the other co -owners
shares.
Paulmitan has 2 sets of heirs: those from her son, Donato
(Juliana), and those from her other son, Pascual (simply
heirs). Upon her death, Donato and Pascual inherited two
lots. Donato fraudulently extrajudicially partitioned to
FACTS: himself one lot (Lot A), claiming that hes the sole heir.
Donato also sold the other lot (Lot B) to his daughter,
Juliana. Lot B was forfeited for non-payment of taxes, but
Juliana redeemed it in time. The heirs sued for partition
and damages. Juliana claims sole ownership of the lot.
Does the redemption of forfeited property terminate co-
ISSUE:
ownership?
NO. When Donato sold the undivided property to Juliana,
he could only sell that portion which may be allotted to
him upon termination of the co-ownership. Therefore, at
the time of the foreclosure and the redemption, Juliana
RATIO: was still a co-owner of the property. Nevertheless, she did
acquire the right to be reimbursed for half of the
redemption price she paid on behalf of her co-owners.
Until reimbursed, she holds a lien upon the subject
property for the amount due her.
Adille v CA, Asejo (1988)
Prescription does not run against a co -owner if
there is no Act of Repudiation, which must meet
the ff conditions:
(1) A co-owner repudiates the co -ownership
(2) The act of repudiation is clearly made
known to other co-owners
(3) The evidence thereon is clear and
conclusive
(4) The co-owner has been in possession thru
open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the property for
the period required by law.
Registration under the Torrens system is
constructive notice of title but it NOT
SUFFICIENT NOTICE of the act of repudiation.
Felisa has 6 heirs: Rustico and his 5 stepsiblings. Felisa sold
a parcel of land in a pacto de retro sale but she died before
FACTS: she can redeem said land. Rustico redeemed it and,
claiming that he is the only child, partitioned it unto
himself. The siblings sued to partition.
WON Rustico had sole ownership over the redeemed
ISSUE:
property?
NO. Redemption does not terminate co-ownership. The
right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with
respect to his share alone. Co-ownership still exists.
RATIO:
Rusticos remedy is to collect reimbursement from his
half-siblings for the necessary expenses he incurred
(redemption price) under A488 CC.
Rustico hadnt repudiated the co-ownership thus
NOTE:
prescription does not run.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 1. Right to demand partition
Definition of Partition:
Avila v Sps Barabat (2006)
Every act intended to put an end to indivision among
co-heirs is deemed to be a partition. By ascertaining
and taking possession of their respective parts, the
shares became physically determined and clearly
identifiable and no longer ideal.
Anunciacion left a parcel of land to her 5 children when
she died, and the latter built their respective houses on
said lot. Avila, one of the children, leased and later sold
her portion to Sps Barabat. Avila also sold it to Adlawan.
FACTS:
Adlawan demanded Sps Barabat to vacate so the latter
sued for quieting of title and to annul the second sale.
Avila and Adlawan claim that there is a right of
redemption for co-owners under Art 1620.
WON there was co-ownership which justifies their right of
ISSUE:
redemption?
NO. The judicial admission by the Petitioners, that their
respective shares in the lot have been physically
RATIO:
segregated, negates the existence of co-ownership, and
their right to redemption.
Right to redemption is intended to minimize co-ownership
such that when a property is subdivided and distributed
among co-owners, the community ceases to exist. The
NOTE:
petitioners share, being identifiable, physically
determined, and no longer ideal dissolved the co-
ownership.
Hernandez v Judge Quitain, Valdemoro (1988)
There is no right of redemption under Art 1620
if there has been a partition.
Sancho and Jose, along with their 5 other siblings, are co-
owners of a parcel of land. It was partitioned. Sancho
thereafter sold his lot to Perla, and Jose sold his to Ernesta
FACTS:
(the owner of the adjacent land). Ernesta sued Perla to
redeem the land sold to Perla, citing Art 1620 and, later,
Art 1622.
ISSUE: Are they entitled to the right of redemption?
NO. There is no right of redemption because the partition
RATIO: terminated the co-ownership.
Definition of Partition:
- The separation, division or assignment of things held in common,
among the people to whom they may belong.
- A thing may be physically divided or its value partitioned
- Anyone may demand partition anytime (Art. 494)
- Rationale: The law discourages co-ownership. He must not be
trapped in such kind of relationship.
- Does not prescribe as long as co-ownership exists and is recognized
o But co-owner may acquire all rights to property through
prescription.
Elements of Prescription:
1. Co-owner repudiates the co-ownership
2. Act is made known to other co-owners
3. Evidence is clear and conclusive
4. Has been in possession through open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession as required by law
30 85

CASES ON RIGHT TO DEMAND PARTITION
Vda de Reyes v CA, Sps Gardiola (1991)
An oral partition is valid. A co -owner may
validly dispose of his share or interest in the
property subject to the condition that the
portion disposed of is eventually allotted to
him.
Gavino was the owner of a parcel of land but he died while
a title thereto was still being applied for. A son, Marcelo,
eventually obtained an OCT for the heirs. The heirs orally
partitioned among themselves the property and two lots
were allotted to Rafael Sr. He then sold a parcel to
Gardiola, although it isnt clear which of the two lots it
corresponds to. He eventually died and the lot intended
FACTS: for him was adjudicated to Jr instead in the 1967
Extrajudicial Partition. The problem: Gardiola and
Martillano are already in possession of the lot as well as
the separate TCTs issued. A suit was filed to annul the
partition, which was dismissed, but the TC ordered
Gardiola to deliver the TCTs. Jrs heirs sued Gardiola to
deliver the lot that, according to them, still belonged to
them.
ISSUE: Was the oral partition valid?
YES. The oral partition being valid, the Gardiola sale of a
definite portion is valid. Assuming, however, that the
partition was somehow invalid, Sr still had a right as co-
RATIO:
heir and as co-owner to sell the definite portion that was
eventually to be allotted to him. This was the same lot
eventually adjudicated to Jr.
Vda de Ape v CA, Vda de Lumayno (2005)
For a co-owner to exercise the right of
redemption, the seller must send a notice in
writing. The 30-day period starts running only
on the day the notice is sent.
Cleopas died and he left a parcel of land to his wife,
Perpetua, and their 11 children, one of whom is Fortunato.
Generosa now claims that Fortunato sold to her his share
for P5k (evidenced by a receipt of P30 advanced payment),
FACTS: so she sued for specific performance. By way of defense,
Fortunato claims that he has a right of redemption under
Art 1623. The TC held that Fortunato could no longer
exercise the right because the 30-day period had already
lapsed.
ISSUE: Can Fortunato exercise such right of redemption?
NO. For the 30 days to run, Lumayno, as the seller, must
send a written notice to Fortunato. No such notice was
sent so the 30-day period did not start to run. Therefore
Fortunatos right to redeem did not lapse. The sale,
however, is valid and Fortunato can no longer redeem
RATIO:
because there had been a partition (the heirs had already
ascertained and taken possession of their respective
parts). As such, co-ownership was terminated. Having no
co-ownership, the right to redeem cannot be used
anymore.
- There is a stipulation against it
- When the condition of indivision is imposed by the transferor
- When the legal nature of the community prevents partition
- When the partition would render the thing unserviceable
- When partition is prohibited by law
Notes:
- Statute of Frauds does not apply to partition
o Unless rights of third persons are being prejudiced
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 2. No Partition
Effects of Partition
Article 495
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, the co-owners cannot
demand a physical division of the thing owned in common, when to do so would
render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may
be terminated in accordance with Article 498.
Article 498
Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it
be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its
proceeds distributed.
1. Give the thing to a co-owner
2. Co-Owner is to indemnify others
3. If the co-owners cannot agree to this, the thing shall be sold, and
the proceeds to be distributed proportional to the share of each
If 1 or more co-owners made valuable improvements:
- This portion will be given to the co-owner
Article 497
The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing
owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But
they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in
case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without
prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.
Notes on 3rd Parties
- GR: Creditors may take part in the division
o Need to establish the existence of credit during co-
ownership
- E: If the partition was already executed
- EE: If there was fraud, or a previous formal opposition to the
partition
- No need to notify creditors, unless they will be prejudiced / there is
stipulations on credit contract
Article 499
The partition of a thing owned in common shall not prejudice third persons, who shall
retain the rights of mortgage, servitude or any other real rights belonging to them
before the division was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the
co-ownership shall also remain in force, notwithstanding the partition.
Notes:
- Partition will not affect existing rights of 3rd persons (easement,
personal property, etc.)
Article 500
Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and
reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages
caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.
Article 501
Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects of title and quality of the
portion assigned to each of the other co-owners.
31 85

Effects of Partition
- Conferring of an exclusive title to each owner
- Each owner shall be deemed to have exclusively possessed the part
which may be allotted to him upon the division during the period of
co-ownership.
- Obligations of Co-Owners:
o Mutual accounting for benefits received
o Mutual reimbursement for expenses
o Indemnity for damages in case of negligence or fraud
o Reciprocal warranty for
Defects of Title (or eviction)
Defects of Quality (or hidden defects)
Failure to agree by parties to partition
- Court to appoint commissioners that are disinterested and
competent (e.g. Geodetic Engr.)
- If still disagreeable, can be appealed to an appellate court
When is partition deemed completed?
- Upon delivery of portion (constructive / actual)
RA 4726 AS AMENDED BY RA 7899 (June 18, 1966)
Section 1
The Condominium Act
Section 2
A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest in a unit
in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common,
directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of
the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other
portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the
appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for
the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the
holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the
exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units
in the common areas.
The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in real property
recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.
Section 3
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "Condominium" means a condominium as defined in the next preceding
section.
(b) "Unit" means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of
independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces
located in one or more floors (or part or parts of floors) in a building or
buildings and such accessories as may be appended thereto.
(c) "Project" means the entire parcel of real property divided or to be divided in
condominiums, including all structures thereon,
(d) "Common areas" means the entire project excepting all units separately
granted or held or reserved.
(e) "To divide" real property means to divide the ownership thereof or other
interest therein by conveying one or more condominiums therein but less
than the whole thereof.
Section 4
The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to be divided into
condominiums only if there shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds of the province
or city in which the property lies and duly annotated in the corresponding certificate
of title of the land, if the latter had been patented or registered under either the Land
Registration or Cadastral Acts, an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among
others, the following:
(a) Description of the land on which the building or buildings and improvements
are or are to be located;
(b) Description of the building or buildings, stating the number of stories and
basements, the number of units and their accessories, if any;
(c) Description of the common areas and facilities;
(d) A statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be acquired by
the purchaser in the separate units and in the common areas of the
condominium project. Where title to or the appurtenant interests in the
common areas is or is to be held by a condominium corporation, a statement
to this effect shall be included;
(e) Statement of the purposes for which the building or buildings and each of
the units are intended or restricted as to use;
(f) A certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than
those executing the master deed, as well as of all registered holders of any
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 7. Condominium Law
When is partition deemed completed?
lien or encumbrance on the property, that they consent to the registration
of the deed;
(g) The following plans shall be appended to the deed as integral parts thereof:
(1) A survey plan of the land included in the project, unless a survey plan
of the same property had previously been filed in said office;
(2) A diagrammatic floor plan of the building or buildings in the project, in
sufficient detail to identify each unit, its relative location and
approximate dimensions;
(h) Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law, morals or public policy
regarding the right of any condominium owner to alienate or dispose of his
condominium.
The enabling or master deed may be amended or revoked upon registration of an
instrument executed by a simple majority of the registered owners of the property:
Provided, That in a condominium project exclusively for either residential or
commercial use, simple majority shall be on per unit of ownership basis and that in
the case of mixed use, simple majority shall be on floor area of ownership basis:
Provided further, That prior notifications to all registered owners are done, and
Provided, finally, That any amendment or revocation already decided by a simple
majority of all registered owners shall be submitted to the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board and the city/municipal engineer for approval before it can be
registered. Until registration of a revocation, the provision of this Act shall continue
to apply to such property.
Section 5
Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or store or other space
therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided interests in the
common areas or, in a proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the
condominium corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the
condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners
thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons
other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital stock
of which belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where
the common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or
conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the appurtenant
membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause the alien interest in such
corporation to exceed the limits imposed by existing laws.
Section 6
Unless otherwise expressly provided in the enabling or master deed or the declaration
of restrictions, the incidents of a condominium grant are as follows:
(a) The boundary of the unit granted are the interior surfaces of the perimeter
walls, floors, ceilings, windows and doors thereof. The following are not part
of the unit bearing walls, columns, floors, roofs, foundations and other
common structural elements of the building; lobbies, stairways, hallways,
and other areas of common use, elevator equipment and shafts, central
heating, central refrigeration and central air-conditioning equipment,
reservoirs, tanks, pumps and other central services and facilities, pipes,
ducts, flues, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations, wherever
located, except the outlets thereof when located within the unit.
(b) There shall pass with the unit, as an appurtenance thereof, an exclusive
easement for the use of the air space encompassed by the boundaries of the
unit as it exists at any particular time and as the unit may lawfully be
altered or reconstructed from time to time. Such easement shall be
automatically terminated in any air space upon destruction of the unit as to
render it untenantable.
(c) Unless otherwise, provided, the common areas are held in common by the
holders of units, in equal shares, one for each unit.
(d) A non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and support through the
common areas is appurtenant to each unit and the common areas are
subject to such easements.
(e) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to paint, repaint,
tile, wax, paper or otherwise refinish and decorate the inner surfaces of the
walls, ceilings, floors, windows and doors bounding his own unit.
(f) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to mortgage, pledge
or encumber his condominium and to have the same appraised
independently of the other condominiums but any obligation incurred by
such condominium owner is personal to him.
(g) Each condominium owner has also the absolute right to sell or dispose of his
condominium unless the master deed contains a requirement that the
property be first offered to the condominium owners within a reasonable
period of time before the same is offered to outside parties;
Section 7
Except as provided in the following section, the common areas shall remain undivided,
and there shall be no judicial partition thereof.
Section 8
Where several persons own condominiums in a condominium project, an action may
be brought by one or more such persons for partition thereof by sale of the entire
project, as if the owners of all of the condominiums in such project were co-owners of
the entire project in the same proportion as their interests in the common areas:
Provided, however, That a partition shall be made only upon a showing:
32 85

(a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project which renders
material part thereof unit for its use prior thereto, the project has not been
rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its damage or
destruction, or
(b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one-half or more of
the units therein untenantable and that condominium owners holding in
aggregate more than thirty percent interest in the common areas are
opposed to repair or restoration of the project; or
(c) That the project has been in existence in excess of fifty years, that it is
obsolete and uneconomic, and that condominium owners holding in
aggregate more than fifty percent interest in the common areas are
opposed to repair or restoration or remodelling or modernizing of the
project; or
(d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or
expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the
condominium owners holding in aggregate more than seventy percent
interest in the common areas are opposed to continuation of the
condominium regime after expropriation or condemnation of a material
portion thereof; or
(e) That the conditions for such partition by sale set forth in the declaration of
restrictions, duly registered in accordance with the terms of this Act, have
been met.
Section 9
The owner of a project shall, prior to the conveyance of any condominium therein,
register a declaration of restrictions relating to such project, which restrictions shall
constitute a lien upon each condominium in the project, and shall insure to and bind
all condominium owners in the project. Such liens, unless otherwise provided, may be
enforced by any condominium owner in the project or by the management body of
such project. The Register of Deeds shall enter and annotate the declaration of
restrictions upon the certificate of title covering the land included within the project,
if the land is patented or registered under the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts.
The declaration of restrictions shall provide for the management of the project by
anyone of the following management bodies: a condominium corporation, an
association of the condominium owners, a board of governors elected by condominium
owners, or a management agent elected by the owners or by the board named in the
declaration. It shall also provide for voting majorities quorums, notices, meeting date,
and other rules governing such body or bodies.
Such declaration of restrictions, among other things, may also provide:
(a) As to any such management body;
(1) For the powers thereof, including power to enforce the provisions of
the declarations of restrictions;
(2) For maintenance of insurance policies, insuring condominium owners
against loss by fire, casualty, liability, workmen's compensation and
other insurable risks, and for bonding of the members of any
management body;
(3) Provisions for maintenance, utility, gardening and other services
benefiting the common areas, for the employment of personnel
necessary for the operation of the building, and legal, accounting and
other professional and technical services;
(4) For purchase of materials, supplies and the like needed by the
common areas;
(5) For payment of taxes and special assessments which would be a lien
upon the entire project or common areas, and for discharge of any lien
or encumbrance levied against the entire project or the common
areas;
(6) For reconstruction of any portion or portions of any damage to or
destruction of the project;
(7) The manner for delegation of its powers;
(8) For entry by its officers and agents into any unit when necessary in
connection with the maintenance or construction for which such body
is responsible;
(9) For a power of attorney to the management body to sell the entire
project for the benefit of all of the owners thereof when partition of
the project may be authorized under Section 8 of this Act, which said
power shall be binding upon all of the condominium owners
regardless of whether they assume the obligations of the restrictions
or not.
(b) The manner and procedure for amending such restrictions: Provided, that
the vote of not less than a majority in interest of the owners is obtained.
(c) For independent audit of the accounts of the management body;
(d) For reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures, each
condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in
proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owners fractional interest in
any common areas;
(e) For the subordination of the liens securing such assessments to other liens
either generally or specifically described;
(f) For conditions, other than those provided for in Sections eight and thirteen
of this Act, upon which partition of the project and dissolution of the
condominium corporation may be made. Such right to partition or
dissolution may be conditioned upon failure of the condominium owners to
rebuild within a certain period or upon specified inadequacy of insurance
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 7. Condominium Law
When is partition deemed completed?
proceeds, or upon specified percentage of damage to the building, or upon a
decision of an arbitrator, or upon any other reasonable condition.
Section 10
Whenever the common areas in a condominium project are held by a condominium
corporation, such corporation shall constitute the management body of the project.
The corporate purposes of such a corporation shall be limited to the holding of the
common areas, either in ownership or any other interest in real property recognized
by law, to the management of the project, and to such other purposes as may be
necessary, incidental or convenient to the accomplishment of said purposes. The
articles of incorporation or by-laws of the corporation shall not contain any provision
contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the enabling or master deed,
or the declaration of restrictions of the project. Membership in a condominium
corporation, regardless of whether it is a stock or non-stock corporation, shall not be
transferable separately from the condominium unit of which it is an appurtenance.
When a member or stockholder ceases to own a unit in the project in which the
condominium corporation owns or holds the common areas, he shall automatically
cease to be a member or stockholder of the condominium corporation.
Section 11
The term of a condominium corporation shall be co-terminus with the duration of the
condominium project, the provisions of the Corporation Law to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Section 12
In case of involuntary dissolution of a condominium corporation for any of the causes
provided by law, the common areas owned or held by the corporation shall, by way of
liquidation, be transferred pro-indiviso and in proportion to their interest in the
corporation to the members or stockholders thereof, subject to the superior rights of
the corporation creditors. Such transfer or conveyance shall be deemed to be a full
liquidation of the interest of such members or stockholders in the corporation. After
such transfer or conveyance, the provisions of this Act governing undivided co-
ownership of, or undivided interest in, the common areas in condominium projects
shall fully apply.
Section 13
Until the enabling or the master deed of the project in which the condominium
corporation owns or holds the common area is revoked, the corporation shall not be
voluntarily dissolved through an action for dissolution under Rule 104 of the Rules of
Court except upon a showing:
(a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project in which the
corporation owns or holds the common areas, which damage or destruction
renders a material part thereof unfit for its use prior thereto, the project has
not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its damage or
destruction; or
(b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one-half or more of
the units therein untenantable and that more than thirty percent of the
members of the corporation, if non-stock, or the shareholders representing
more than thirty percent of the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock
corporation, are opposed to the repair or reconstruction of the project, or
(c) That the project has been in existence in excess of fifty years, that it is
obsolete and uneconomical, and that more than fifty percent of the
members of the corporation, if non-stock, or the stockholders representing
more than fifty percent of the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock
corporation, are opposed to the repair or restoration or remodelling or
modernizing of the project; or
(d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or
expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the members
holding in aggregate more than seventy percent interest in the corporation,
if non-stock, or the stockholders representing more than seventy percent of
the capital stock entitled to vote, if a stock corporation, are opposed to the
continuation of the condominium regime after expropriation or
condemnation of a material portion thereof; or
(e) That the conditions for such a dissolution set forth in the declaration of
restrictions of the project in which the corporation owns or holds the
common areas, have been met.
Section 14
The condominium corporation may also be dissolved by the affirmative vote of all the
stockholders or members thereof at a general or special meeting duly called for the
purpose: Provided, That all the requirements of Section sixty-two of the Corporation
Law are complied with.
Section 15
Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration of restrictions upon voluntary
dissolution of a condominium corporation in accordance with the provisions of
Sections thirteen and fourteen of this Act, the corporation shall be deemed to hold a
power of attorney from all the members or stockholders to sell and dispose of their
separate interests in the project and liquidation of the corporation shall be effected
by a sale of the entire project as if the corporation owned the whole thereof, subject
to the rights of the corporate and of individual condominium creditors.
33 85

Section 16
A condominium corporation shall not, during its existence, sell, exchange, lease or
otherwise dispose of the common areas owned or held by it in the condominium
project unless authorized by the affirmative vote of a simple majority of the
registered owners: Provided, That prior notifications to all registered owners are done:
and, Provided, further, That the condominium corporation may expand or integrate
the project with another upon the affirmative vote of a simple majority of the
registered owners, subject only to the final approval of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board.
Section 17
Any provision of the Corporation Law to the contrary notwithstanding, the by-laws of
a condominium corporation shall provide that a stockholder or member shall not be
entitled to demand payment of his shares or interest in those cases where such right
is granted under the Corporation Law unless he consents to sell his separate interest
in the project to the corporation or to any purchaser of the corporation's choice who
shall also buy from the corporation the dissenting member or stockholder's interest.
In case of disagreement as to price, the procedure set forth in the appropriate
provision of the Corporation Law for valuation of shares shall be followed. The
corporation shall have two years within which to pay for the shares or furnish a
purchaser of its choice from the time of award. All expenses incurred in the liquidation
of the interest of the dissenting member or stockholder shall be borne by him.
Section 18
Upon registration of an instrument conveying a condominium, the Register of Deeds
shall, upon payment of the proper fees, enter and annotate the conveyance on the
certificate of title covering the land included within the project and the transferee
shall be entitled to the issuance of a "condominium owner's" copy of the pertinent
portion of such certificate of title. Said "condominium owner's" copy need not
reproduce the ownership status or series of transactions in force or annotated with
respect to other condominiums in the project. A copy of the description of the land, a
brief description of the condominium conveyed, name and personal circumstances of
the condominium owner would be sufficient for purposes of the "condominium
owner's" copy of the certificate of title. No conveyance of condominiums or part
thereof, subsequent to the original conveyance thereof from the owner of the project,
shall be registered unless accompanied by a certificate of the management body of
the project that such conveyance is in accordance with the provisions of the
declaration of restrictions of such project.
In cases of condominium projects registered under the provisions of the Spanish
Mortgage Law or Act 3344, as amended, the registration of the deed of conveyance of
a condominium shall be sufficient if the Register of Deeds shall keep the original or
signed copy thereof, together with the certificate of the management body of the
project, and return a copy of the deed of conveyance to the condominium owner duly
acknowledge and stamped by the Register of Deeds in the same manner as in the case
of registration of conveyances of real property under said laws.
Section 19
Where the enabling or master deed provides that the land included within a
condominium project are to be owned in common by the condominium owners therein,
the Register of Deeds may, at the request of all the condominium owners and upon
surrender of all their "condominium owner's" copies, cancel the certificates of title of
the property and issue a new one in the name of said condominium owners as pro-
indiviso co-owners thereof.
Section 20
An assessment upon any condominium made in accordance with a duly registered
declaration of restrictions shall be an obligation of the owner thereof at the time the
assessment is made. The amount of any such assessment plus any other charges
thereon, such as interest, costs (including attorney's fees) and penalties, as such may
be provided for in the declaration of restrictions, shall be and become a lien upon the
condominium assessed when the management body causes a notice of assessment to
be registered with the Register of Deeds of the city or province where such
condominium project is located. The notice shall state the amount of such assessment
and such other charges thereon a may be authorized by the declaration of restrictions,
a description of the condominium, unit against which same has been assessed, and the
name of the registered owner thereof. Such notice shall be signed by an authorized
representative of the management body or as otherwise provided in the declaration
of restrictions. Upon payment of said assessment and charges or other satisfaction
thereof, the management body shall cause to be registered a release of the lien.
Such lien shall be superior to all other liens registered subsequent to the registration
of said notice of assessment except real property tax liens and except that the
declaration of restrictions may provide for the subordination thereof to any other liens
and encumbrances.
Such liens may be enforced in the same manner provided for by law for the judicial or
extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages of real property. Unless otherwise provided
for in the declaration of restrictions, the management body shall have power to bid at
foreclosure sale. The condominium owner shall have the same right of redemption as
in cases of judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages.
Section 21
No labor performed or services or materials furnished with the consent of or at the
request of a condominium owner or his agent or his contractor or subcontractor, shall
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 7. Condominium Law
Notes on the Condominium Law:
be the basis of a lien against the condominium of any other condominium owner,
unless such other owners have expressly consented to or requested the performance
of such labor or furnishing of such materials or services. Such express consent shall be
deemed to have been given by the owner of any condominium in the case of emergency
repairs of his condominium unit. Labor performed or services or materials furnished
for the common areas, if duly authorized by the management body provided for in a
declaration of restrictions governing the property, shall be deemed to be performed
or furnished with the express consent of each condominium owner. The owner of any
condominium may remove his condominium from a lien against two or more
condominiums or any part thereof by payment to the holder of the lien of the fraction
of the total sum secured by such lien which is attributable to his condominium unit.
Section 22
Unless otherwise provided for by the declaration of restrictions, the management
body, provided for herein, may acquire and hold, for the benefit of the condominium
owners, tangible and intangible personal property and may dispose of the same by sale
or otherwise; and the beneficial interest in such personal property shall be owned by
the condominium owners in the same proportion as their respective interests in the
common areas. A transfer of a condominium shall transfer to the transferee
ownership of the transferor's beneficial interest in such personal property.
Section 23
Where, in an action for partition of a condominium project or for the dissolution of
condominium corporation on the ground that the project or a material part thereof
has been condemned or expropriated, the Court finds that the conditions provided for
in this Act or in the declaration of restrictions have not been met, the Court may decree
a reorganization of the project, declaring which portion or portions of the project shall
continue as a condominium project, the owners thereof, and the respective rights of
said remaining owners and the just compensation, if any, that a condominium owner
may be entitled to due to deprivation of his property. Upon receipt of a copy of the
decree, the Register of Deeds shall enter and annotate the same on the pertinent
certificate of title.
Section 24
Any deed, declaration or plan for a condominium project shall be liberally construed
to facilitate the operation of the project, and its provisions shall be presumed to be
independent and severable.
Section 25
Whenever real property has been divided into condominiums, each condominium
separately owned shall be separately assessed, for purposes of real property taxation
and other tax purposes to the owners thereof and the tax on each such condominium
shall constitute a lien solely thereon.
Notes on the Condominium Law:
Basic Facts:
- The Condominium Act
- June 18, 1966
Definition of terms:
- Condominium
o Interest in real property
Separate interest in the unit
Undivided interest in the land and the
common areas
o Building can be residential, commercial or industrial
o Typically, a condominium corporation will hold title to
the common areas
Members are the unit owners
Membership is in proportion from the size of
the unit to the common areas
- Unit
o Part of the condominium project intended for any type
of independent use/ownership
- Project
o Parcel of real property where the building is built and
divided into specific condo units
- Common areas
o Entire project units
Master Deed
- The Master Deed is recorded in the Register of Deeds and
annotated on the title of the land
- It includes the description of the land, building, common areas
(facilities) and units, purpose of the building, restriction to dispose
(unless this is contrary to morals, etc.) and certification of consent
by members to its content
34 85

- Can be amended and revoked
o Simple majority needed
o Notification to all registered owners is required
o HLURB and Office of City Engineers approval is needed
o Voting is different:
Residential: Votes is per # of units owned
Mixed Use: Votes is per Floor area
Characteristics of the Condominium Unit
- If owner sells a unit, it includes the undivided interest in the
common areas and membership to the condominium corporation
- Restrictions imposed on the owner:
o Cannot be transferred to aliens or less than 60% Filipino
owned corps.
o Right of first refusal by other condo members (only if
stipulated in the Master Deed)
- Easements: Air and Light space, ingress, egress
Characteristics of the Common Areas
- Common areas cannot be partitioned
o Except if the entire project is sold (therefore entire
project is partitioned)
o A member can only disagree if it will consent to the
selling of his unit
Declaration of Restrictions
- Declaration of Restrictions
o A lien that will bind the condo owners to the project
o Required to be created before selling the units
o Annotated on the Title
o Includes:
Who will manage the project (usually the
condo corp / association)
Powers and obligations of the management
body
Voting majorities, quorums, notices, meeting
date and other rules governing such body/ies
Management Body of the Project
- Consists of the condominium corporation
- Purposes:
o Holding of the common areas
o Management of the project
o Other purposes necessary, incidental or convenient to
the accomplishment of the said purposes
- Articles of Incorporation must be consistent with Master Deed and
Declaration of Restrictions
- Membership shall not be transferable separately from the unit
- Term of the Body = Duration of the Project
Dissolution of Condo Corp:
- Involuntary (Bankruptcy):
o Common area is transferred to the unit owners pro
indiviso
- Voluntary:
o Through affirmative voting
o Deemed to hold a general power of attorney = this is for
them to liquidate the project through a sale
Partitioning of the Project
- Valid causes for partition:
o Huge damage to condominium and 3 years have lapsed
since such damage
o Damage has rendered of the project is untenantable &
30% of the members are opposed to the repairs
o Project is more than 50 years (obsolete project) & 50%
of members are opposed to remodelling the project
o Material part of the project is condemned and 70% are
opposed to the repairs
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VI. Co-Ownership || H. Partition of Thing owned in Common || 7. Condominium Law
Notes on the Condominium Law:
- If partition is based on condemnation/expropriation, certain
requisites exist:
o Court to order the reorganization of the project, rights
of the members, etc.
Obligations of the Condo Owner
- Payment of all charges and assessments
o Considered as a lien on the unit, therefore foreclosure is
possible
o Consent is needed in order to charge owner for expenses
on the condo unit
If common areas, no need for consent but
must be authorized by the management
corporation
- Presumption that the management corporation is acting for the
benefit of the unit owners
- Master Deed is to be construed liberally, in favor of the unit owners
CASES ON THE CONDOMINIUM LAW
Twin Towers v CA, ALS Mgt, Litonjua (2003)
In the Condo Act, the Master Deed may
authorize a Corporation to collect assessments.
It also expressly empowers the corporation to
register a Declaration of Restrictions which
inure to and bind all owners of the project. The
Corporation also has the power to enforce the
provisions in the Declaration of Restrictions.
ALS Mgt owned a unit in the Twin Towers Condo and this
unit was occupied by its President, Litonjua. ALS failed to
pay the assessments for 2 years so Twin Towers, invoking
its house rules, did not allow ALS and Litonjua to use its
FACTS:
facilities (pool, gym, etc.). Twin Towers sued to collect the
assessments. As defense, ALS claims: (1) Twin Towers
cannot collect assessments bec it denies the use of its
facilities, (2) the House Rule relied on is ultra vires.
Is the House Rule ultra vires?
ISSUES:
Can Twin Towers collect from ALS Mgmt?
NO. The House Rule is not ultra vires because the Condo
Act, the Corporations By-Laws and the Master Deed
expressly empower Twin Towers to promulgate such rules.
YES. It is specifically stated in the Master Deed that unit
RATIO: owner is proportionally liable for common expenses. So
ALS has an obligation to share in the expenses that does
not depend on the use or non-use of the facilities. There is
a reciprocal obligation such that when ALS was in delay,
Twin Towers now had the right not to comply.
Sunset View v Judge Campos, Aguilar-Bernares Realty, Lim Siu
Leng (1981)
The Condo Act leaves to the Master Deed the
determination of when shareholding is
transferred.
Aguilar-Bernares Realty (ABR) and Lim Sie Leng (LSL) are
paying for their units in Sunset View in instalments. This is
a suit in the RTC to collect for unpaid assessments.
Defense: RTC has no jurisdiction because it is a
FACTS:
controversy arising out of intracorporate or partnership
relations between and among stockholders and, as
such, the Securities and Exchange Commission should
have jurisdiction.
Are ABR and LSL shareholders in the Condominium
ISSUE:
Corporation?
NO. Since the private respondents have not yet fully paid
the purchase price of the units, cannot be stockholders of
RATIO: the Condominium Corporation. The Master Deed here says
that an essential condition to ownership is a condition sine
qua non to being a shareholder.
Since this is not an intracorporate controversy, RTC has
NOTE: jurisdiction.
35 85
 VII. Possession || A. Definition, Requisites, Characteristics || 1. In ones own name or in the name of another
Concept of a Holder

VII. Possession CASES ON DEFINITION, REQUISITES, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF

POSSESSION
Ramos v Director of Lands (1918)
Article 523 Possession and cultivation of a portion of a
Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. tract under claim of ownership of all is a
constructive possession of all, if the remainder
Definition of Possession is not in the adverse possession of another.
- Holding of a thing or right
- Whether by physical/material occupation or because of being Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean
subject to the action of our will that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of ground before it can be said that is in
OWNERSHIP POSSESSION possession.
Complete control of the owner Either Concept of an Owner/Holder Ramos bought a tract of land but he occupied only of it.
FACTS: He sought to register it, but the Director of Lands opposed,
Requisites of Possession
alleging that he did not possess the entire tract.
1. Holding/Enjoyment/Control of a thing/right
Is actual occupation of an entire track of land required for
2. Deliberate intention to possess ISSUE:
a person to be entitled to title that land?
3. Concept of an owner/holder
YES. Ramos has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
Right to Possession (jus possidendi) notorious constructive possession of the entire tract
RATIO:
- Right or Incident of ownership under color of title and in good faith. He is therefore
entitled to register the entire tract.
Right of Possession (jus possissionis)
- Independent right of itself, independent of ownership
Director of Lands v CA (1984)
Characteristics of Possession Cabauatans heirs seek to register 138 ha of land but the
- Rebuttable presumption using evidence to prove absence of animus F A C T S : Director of Lands opposed because there were several
possidendi homesteaders in actual possession of portions of the land.
- Possession is not a definitive proof of ownership ISSUE: Does constructive possession apply?
o Creation of a disputable presumption of ownership NO. Constructive possession does not apply because there
are homesteaders in adverse possession over a substantial
Degrees of holding RATIO:
portion. Moreover the area claimed is much larger than
1. Without title/right whatsoever (thief) that indicated in the title.
2. With a juridical title but not that of an owner (lessee/depositary)
3. With a just title sufficient to transfer ownership, but not from the
true owner (Buyer in GF)
4. With a title of dominion (owner)
Article 524
ABSOLUTE POSSESSION CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION
Possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another.
Occupancy of the entire / Occupancy of only a part of the
substantial part of the property property Types of Possession in anothers name
There are acts of dominion No adverse claim on the remaining - Voluntary
exercised by the possessor part16 - Necessary/Authorized
- Unauthorized
JURIDICAL TITLE JUST TITLE
AS TO SOURCE From person with May be from a true owner
capacity to enter a or from one who Article 525
juridical relationship claims/pretends to be the The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the
true owner but is not concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the
ownership pertaining to another person.
AS TO INTENT No intent to transfer To transfer ownership
ownership to the Concept of an Owner
holder, only rights - Acts and claims to be the owner
RESULTING Concept of a holder Concept of an owner
POSSESSION Concept of a Holder
AS TO POWER Not sufficient to further Sufficient to further - Acts still acknowledge ownership of another
TO TRANSFER transfer ownership transfer ownership
OWNERSHIP Effects of Possession in Concept of an Owner
EXAMPLES Lease, usufruct, Sale, barter, donation, etc. - This possession may ripen into ownership through prescription
mortgage, etc. (adverse possession)
- Possessor can bring all actions necessary to preserve possession
- He can ask for inscription of his possession in the registry of
property
- He can demand damages and fruits from illegal possessors

16 Ramos v. Director of Lands

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 36 85
 VII. Possession || C. Acquisition of Possession || 3. In Good Faith or Bad Faith
Some rules on Possession thru Succession Mortis Causa

Types of Constructive Delivery

Article 526
1. Tradicion brevi-manu
He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title
o A person possesses a thing by title other than
or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. ownership, continues to do so but under a new title, that
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the of ownership
foregoing. 2. Constitutum possessorium
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. o Owner alienates a thing, but continues to possess the
same under a different title, such as that of a
Article 1127
depositary, pledgee, etc.
The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from
3. Tradicion simbolica
whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
o Effected by delivering some object/symbol placing the
Article 527 thing under the control of the transferee, such as a key
Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a 4. Tradicion longa manu
possessor rests the burden of proof. o Transferor pointing out to the transferee the things
which are being transferred and ownership is
Article 528 transferred by mere consent
Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and
from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he Who may acquire?
possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. - Same person enjoying the thing
- An Authorized Person
Article 529
It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which
- An Unauthorized Person
it was acquired, until the contrary is proved. o But ratification is needed in order to completely acquire
such thing
Article 530
Requisites of Possession:
Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object
of possession. Personal Acquisition
1. Intent to Possess
2. Capacity to Possess
POSSESSOR IN GF POSSESSOR IN BF
3. Valid object
Non-Awareness of defects Awareness of defects of title
Belief must stem from some title or Acquisition through an Authorized Person
valid mode of acquisition
1. Intent to possess FOR PRINCIPAL
2. Authority/Capacity to POSSESS FOR PRINCIPAL
POSSESSOR IN GF CONCEPT OF AN OWNER 3. Principal has intent and capacity to possess
No awareness of any flaw May or may not be aware of flaws
Acquisition through an Unauthorized Person
Notes: 1. Intent to possess FOR PRINCIPAL
2. Capacity to possess
- Presumption of good faith
3. Principal has intent and capacity to possess
o Basis: Honesty is presumed in all people
o This continues until rebutted
- Burden of proof falls upon the one alleging bad faith
o Proof: Knowledge of defect of title Article 533
- Good Faith / Bad Faith is intransmissible The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without
interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the
- Good Faith is interrupted upon knowledge of defects by extraneous
inheritance is accepted.
evidence or by suit for recovery by real owner One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the
same.

Article 534
On who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of the wrongful
possession of the decedent, IF it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting
Article 531 it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except from the
Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, date of the death of the decedent.
or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right. Some rules on Possession thru Succession Mortis Causa
Article 532
- If heir accepts, possession transfers at the time of death without
interruption
Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it, by his legal
representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever: but in o Length of Possession of deceased is also transferred17
the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in - If heir refuses or is incapacitated to inherit, he is deemed never to
whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without have possessed the same
prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. o Unless the incapacitated heir exercises such right
through a legal representative
Manner of Acquisition of Possession
1. Material occupation of a thing or Exercise of a right
a. Constructive delivery included Notes:
b. Quasi Possession - If there is no heir to receive property, it is escheated to the
2. Subjection to the action of our will government
3. Proper acts and legal formalities - Upon succession, there is a presumption of GF Possession of the
a. Judicial acts such as donation, succession, contracts, etc. heir, regardless if the decedent occupied it in BF18

17 Art. 1138 (1)

18 Arrila v. De La Serna
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 37 85

- This mode of acquisition pertains to all other specific ways of
transferring ownership and possession as provided by law (e.g. sale,
donation, prescription, etc.)
Article 540
Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a title
for acquiring dominion.
Differences of Just Title:
IN POSSESSION IN PRESCRIPTION
Presumption of Just Title Required to prove Just Title
Different Kinds of Titles
1. True and Valid Title (Titulo Verdadero y Valido)
a. Sufficient to transfer ownership completely
b. E.g. TCT
2. Colorable Title (Titulo Colorado)
a. Defective title, most of the time because the grantor is
not the owner
b. E.g. Fraudulent/Fake Titles
3. Putative Title (Titulo Putativo)
a. Completely no mode of acquiring ownership
b. E.g. Mistaken belief that he had occupied a land he
inherited
CASE ON LEGAL FORMALITIES
Banco Espaol v Peterson (1907)
There is symbolic transfer (tradi cion symbolica)
when the keys of a warehouse containing goods
are delivered to another.
Reyes borrowed P226k from the Bank and secured it with
a mortgage and a pledge of personal goods (wines, liquors,
etc). The pledged goods were stored in a warehouse, the
key of which was surrendered to a depositary whom Reyes
and the Bank agreed upon. Reyes was later sued by a 3rd
FACTS:
person, and lost, so the Sheriff levied upon the pledged
goods. The Bank sued, claiming that it was already in
possession of the goods, therefore making the levy illegal.
The sheriff claims that Reyes continued in possession,
making the pledge invalid.
ISSUE: Who is in possession?
THE BANK THRU THE DEPOSITARY. Even though Reyes
continued to be the owner of the pledged goods, the
depositary had possession thru symbolic transfer. Reyes
RATIO:
could not dispose of the goods because only the Bank may
do so according to the pledge. The Bank, as the one in
possession, therefore has a preferred right over the goods.
Article 535
Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the possession of things; but they
need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which
from the possession arise in their favor.
Notes:
- What is limited is not the ability to acquire but the act of exercising
the rights
- The legal guardian can act on behalf of the incapacitated in order
to acquire property in different manners (physical possession,
prescription, etc.)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VII. Possession || C. Acquisition of Possession || 3. Legal Formalities
Modes through which Possession cannot be acquired
Article 536
In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there
is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to
deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court,
if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
Modes through which Possession cannot be acquired
- Force or Intimidation
- Tolerance
- Clandestine, Secret Possession
* In these cases, action to recover is not through quieting but through unlawful detainer,
forcible entry, etc.
SELF-HELP ART. 536
Preventive use of force Acquisitive use of force
Perspective of the possessor Perspective of an acquirer
CASES ON FORCE, INTIMIDATION, TOLERANCE OR BY VIOLENCE
Peran v CFI, Evasco (1983)
A possessor by tolerance is necessarily bound
by an implied promise to vacate upon demand,
failing which a summary action for eject ment is
the proper remedy against him.
Jose partitioned his land to his 5 heirs, Alejandro and
Anacleto were two of them. Thru a series of sales, Peran
eventually obtained ownership of Alejandros portion, but
FACTS: he was surprised to find that Encarnacion (Anacletos
daughter) was in possession of it. Encarnacions
possession was tolerated by Alejandro for more than 20
years. Peran sued for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
May Encarnacion be evicted despite being in possession
ISSUE:
for more than 20 years?
NO. Encarnacion is not entitled to possession. She did not
RATIO: prove title nor any right to possess.
Tabuso v CA, Heirs of Abad (2001)
Possession may be had in one of two ways:
possession in the concept of an owner and
possession in the concept of a holder.
Possessors in the concept of owners may be the
owners themselves or those who claim to be so.
Those who possess as mere holders acknowledge
in another a superior right which he believes to
be ownership, whether his belief be right or
wrong.
Abads heirs and Tabuso fight over the ownership of a
tract of land. Tabuso claims he paid taxes for 3 years, that
the Abads were not in actual possession and that he has a
FACTS: barong-barong thereon. The Abads presented several
pieces of evidence (Deed of Donation, Deed of Sale, Tax
declarations since 1960, testimonies by neighbors, and a
lease contract).
ISSUE: Who is the owner?
ABADS ARE THE OWNERS. Tabusos possession is in the
concept of a mere holder because his stay is merely
tolerated. That he merely has a barong-barong lends
support to his conclusion. Possessors in the concept of
RATIO:
holders do not have a permanent and indefeasible right in
their favor. Moreover, that the Abads are not in actual
possession is immaterial because actual possession is not
necessary to prove ownership.
38 85

Gacos v CA, Briones (1992)
Possession must be (1) under claim of title or
(2) adverse to constitute the foundation of a
prescriptive right.
Petrona sold a portion of her land to Olaybal, which the
latter later sold to Rosario. Before Petrona died, she also
instructed her sister to sell another portion to cover her
funeral costs (Mendones sale). Rosario later recognized
the Mendones sale impliedly by mentioning Mendones as
the boundary owner south of her property. Rosario, that
FACTS: sly bitch, consolidated all of Petronas lots, declared all of
them under 1 Tax Declaration and then sold all it to Prieto.
Petronas heirs sued to recover their rightful portions.
Prieto claims that he and his predecessor-in-interest are
possessors in good faith in the concept of owners with just
title for 27 years. Acquisitive prescription has therefore set
in.
Are Prieto/Rosario possessors in good faith in the concept
ISSUES: of owners?
Has prescription set in?
NO TO BOTH. Rosarios possession cannot be
characterized as adverse possession in good faith because
RATIO: she knew and recognized Mendones as the owner of the
southern portion. This is an implied recognition of
Mendones ownership.
Article 537
Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge
of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.
Acts merely tolerated definition:
- Acts which by reason of neighbourliness or familiarity, the owner
allows another person to do on the property
- A form of tacit consent
CASES ON RULES AS TO CONFLICT IN POSSESSION
Wong v Carpio (1991)
Possession is acquired by the :
(1) material occupation of a thing or
(2) the exercise of a right, or
(3) by the fact that i t is subject to the action
of our will, or
(4) by the proper acts and legal formalities
for acquiring such right.
The execution of a sale thru a public instrument
is equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless
there is a contrary stipulation.
If, despite the execution of a sale, the buyer
cannot enjoy or possess the thing because it is
opposed by another, then delivery has not been
effected.
Giger obtained 2 loans from Mercado which were secured
by a pacto de retro sale of Gigers coconut land (1st sale).
Mercado periodically visited the land to collect copra, but
FACTS: he neither placed any caretaker nor any sign of his
possession. Giger, that sly dog, later sold the cocoland to
Wong (2nd sale). Mercado found out and sued to eject
Wong.
ISSUE: Who is the lawful possessor?
MERCADO. Possession had already passed to Mercado in
the 1st sale. As such, Giger could no longer pass possession
RATIO:
to Wong in the 2nd sale because there is now an
impediment Mercados possession.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VII. Possession || D. Rules as to Conflict in Possession || 6. Acts merely tolerated
Reason of the Law
Elane v CA, Chua (1989)
In an action for Forcible Entry, it is prior
physical possession, and not legal possession,
that is decisive. Material possession is
protected until a competent court in an
appropriate case determines otherwise.
Chua had been in possession of 4 hectares of public forest
covered by a permit issued by the Bureau of Forestry for
16 years. Elane then started constructing a building over
the land. So Chua sued to eject Elane. Elane claimed that
FACTS: he was the legal possessor since he had a certificate from
the Bureau of Forestry attesting that the land was
alienable and disposable. Moreover, Elane claimed that
Chuas permit had already expired, notwithstanding
Chuas actual physical possession.
Who is entitled to possession?
ISSUES:
May Elane be evicted?
CHUA. ELANE MUST BE EVICTED. Chua was in prior
physical possession (1961), while Elane only entered the
RATIO:
parcel in 1979. That Chuas permit has expired is
immaterial in a suit for forcible entry.
Article 538
Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding
the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two
possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are the same,
the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be
placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership
through proper proceedings.
G.R.: Possession cannot be recognized at the same time in 2 different
personalities
E: No conflict as to the rights and interests of both parties (co-owners
OR holders of different concepts and degrees)
Criteria in case of dispute (in order):
1. Present possessor
2. The one longer in possession
3. The one with a title (legal/equitable)
4. Judicial deposit while pending judicial proceedings
Reason of the Law
- Preference of the law to have only one possessor
- Protection of the current possessor (given that he has the
presumption of ownership)
- Contributes to the stability of ownership of property
39 85
 VII. Possession || E. Rights and Obligations of Possessor in Good Faith || 6. Acts merely tolerated
Obligations of a Possessor in Good Faith

CASE ON ACTS MERELY TOLERATED Article 551

Macasaet v Macasaet (2004) Improvements caused by nature or time shall always insure to the benefit of the
When a person is invited by the owner to person who has succeeded in recovering possession.
occupy his lot, his occupation is the
Article 552
acceptance of that invita tion. There is
A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the thing
therefore an implied agreement subject to a possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent
resolutory condition (change in condition, e.g. or negligence, after the judicial summons.
change of ownership, necessity, death, A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if
animosity). It is no longer possession by mere caused by a fortuitous event.
tolerance. Article 553
One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay for improvements which have
Also, there are cases when the SC applies 448 ceased to exist at the time he takes possession of the thing.
(BPS) to recognize good faith beyond the
Rights of a Possessor in Good Faith
limited definition. This is one such case.
1. Right to be protected in Possession
Ismael built his house on his parents lot upon the latters 2. Right to be respected in Possession
FACTS: prodding. Their relationship later soured, so the parents 3. Right to bring action to restore Possession
sued to eject their son and his wife. 4. Right to the Fruits already received
ISSUE: Are the son and his wife possessors by mere tolerance? 5. Right to a share in pending fruits
NO. Here, Ismael is not a possessor by mere tolerance. He 6. Right to necessary expenses
was invited and his occupation is the acceptance of that 7. Right to retain the thing until reimbursed
invitation. The resolutory condition is his parents love. 8. Right to remove useful improvements removable without damage
RATIO:
When that ended, the agreement ceased as well. Art 448 to the principal thing or to refund its value (upon election by the
(BPS) can be applied. Therefore the parents have an owner)
option: buy the house or sell the lot to their son. 9. Right to recover removable ornaments
Obligations of a Possessor in Good Faith
1. Pay in proportion to the charges, expenses of cultivation and the
net proceeds upon cessation of good faith
2. Costs of litigation
Article 539 3. Liability to the deterioration/loss of a thing possessed if acted
Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be through fraudulent intent/negligence
disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means
established by the laws and the Rules of Court.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may within ten days Right to be Respected in Possession
from the filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, - Protection in said right or restoration to said possession through
in the action for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore legal means (writ of preliminary mandatory injunction)
him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the
filing thereof.
Sharing of Expenses and Charges
Article 544
- Expenses for cultivation shall also be divided pro rata to the time of
A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is
possession
legally interrupted.
Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they are gathered - Charges incurred because of the land and fruits are to be divided in
or severed. proportion to the time of possession
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good faith in that - BUT the owner may choose to either:
proportion. o Divide in proportion the net proceeds and expenses
Article 545
o Allow the GF possessor to finish the cultivation and
gathering of fruits as indemnity for his part of the
If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or industrial fruits,
the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part expenses of cultivation and net proceeds
of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of the possession. If he refuse this option, he loses the right to
The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two possessors. be indemnified
The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the possessor in good faith the
right to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for
Rights of Possessor in GF regarding Useful Expenses
his part of the expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds; the possessor in good
faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose - G.R.: No right to refund/retention
the right to be indemnified in any other manner. - E: Owner of the principal thing has the option to either:
o Ask the possessor to remove
Article 546
o Retain for himself by refunding the useful expenses
Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in
good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Value is either:
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same Amount spent for the
right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the improvement
option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value Increase in value + value of
which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof. improvement
Article 547
In this case, there will be a right to retain by
the possessor
If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to the principal thing,
the possessor in good faith may remove them, unless the person who recovers the
possession exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the preceding article. Rights of Possessors in GF regarding Luxurious or Ornamental Expenses

Article 548 - G.R.: No right to refund/retention but may remove if no

Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in
substantial injury
good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the - E: Owner of the principal thing has the option to either:
principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does o Ask the possessor to remove
not prefer to refund the amount expended. o Retain for himself by refunding the amount spent
Article 550
The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by every possessor.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 40 85
 VII. Possession || F. Rights and Obligations of Possessor in Bad Faith || 6. Acts merely tolerated
Obligations of a Possessor in Bad Faith

Obligations of a Possessor in Bad Faith

1. Reimburse the value of the fruits received and which the legit
possessor could receive.
Article 549
2. Costs of Litigation
The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the
legitimate possessor could have received, and shall have a right only to the expenses 3. Liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even for fortuitous
mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article 443. The expenses incurred in events
improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor
in bad faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been
Rights of Possessor in BF regarding Useful Expenses
incurred, provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful
possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they may have at the time - G.R.: No right to retention, refunding of expenses nor removal of
he enters into possession. the thing

Rights of a Possessor in Bad Faith

Rights of Possessor in BF regarding Luxurious / Ornamental Expenses
1. Right to necessary expenses
2. Right to remove ornamental improvements removable without - G.R.: No right to retention or refunding of expenses
damage to the principal thing - E: Owner of the principal thing has the option to either:
o Retain for himself by refunding the amount of the
ornament at the time owner enters into possession
o Allow the possessor to remove the improvement,
provided that the principal does not suffer any injury

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OF POSSESSION AND RULES OF REFUND

Subject Possessor in GF Possessor in BF
FRUITS GATHERED To possessor To owner
CULTIVATION EXPENSES OF No reimbursement Reimbursed to possessor
GATHERED FRUITS
FRUITS PENDING & CHARGES Net Harvest prorated according to time of possession To owner
PRODUCTION EXPENSES OF Each bear his own expenses (Exception: If owner allowed to No indemnity
PENDING FRUITS continue gathering, no reimbursement)
NECESSARY EXPENSES Reimbursed to possessor Reimbursed to possessor
(PRESERVATION) Right of retention No right to retention
USEFUL EXPENSES Owner may either: No reimbursement
(INCREASES IN VALUE OR - Reimburse to possessor, either the: No removal
VALUE OF OBJECT) o Initial Cost or
o Plus Value
- Allow the removal if no damage is to be caused to
the principal by removal
ORNAMENTAL EXPENSES Owner may either: Owner may either:
(ADDED VALUE SPECIFIC TO - Reimburse to possessor the amount spent - Reimburse to possessor the value at the time of
THE OWNER ONLY) - Allow the removal if no damage is to be caused to acquisition by owner
the principal by removal - Allow the removal if no damage is to be caused to
the principal by removal
TAXES AND CHARGES
1. Charged to owner 1. Charged to owner
1. ON CAPITAL
2. Charged to possessor 2. Charged to owner
2. ON FRUITS 3. Prorated 3. To owner
3. CHARGES
IMPROVEMENTS NO LONGER No reimbursements
EXISTING
LIABILITY FOR Only if acting with fraudulent intent / negligence, after In all cases
LOSS/DETERIORATION summons
IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO TIME To owner or lawful possessor
OR NATURE
*Owner here pertains to the rightful possessor who has defeated the Possessor in GF/BF

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 41 85
 VII. Possession || G. Presumptions regarding Possession || Period of Possession
Loss more than 1 year

Article 541 Article 555

A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he A possessor may lose his possession:
possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it. (1) By the abandonment of the thing;
(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous title;
Article 542 (3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it goes out of
The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as it is commerce;
not shown or proved that they should be excluded. (4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the
new possession has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of
Article 543 possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.
Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common shall be deemed to have
exclusively possessed the part which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, Ways of Losing Possession
for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in the 1. Through Voluntary Will and Intent
possession of the whole or a part of a thing possessed in common shall be to the
prejudice of all the possessors. However, in case of civil interruption, the Rules of Court
a. Abandonment
shall apply. b. Assignment
2. Against the Possessors Will
Article 554 a. Possession de facto by another for more than 1 year
A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is presumed to (only applicable to real property in this case, recovery may be
have held possession also during the intermediate period, in the absence of proof to done through an accion publiciana/reivindicatoria)
the contrary.
b. Prescription
Article 561 c. Final judgement in favor of another
One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for all d. Expropriation
purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption. e. Recover/Reivindication by the legitimate owner
3. Because of the Nature of the object
Presumptions regarding Possession
a. Destruction/Loss
1. Good faith (Art. 527)
2. Continuity of Character of Possession (Art. 529) b. Going out of commerce
3. Non-interruption of Possession of hereditary property (Art. 533) c. Escaping from possessors control of wild animals
4. Non-interruption of Possession of property unjustly lost but legally Definition of Abandonment
recovered (Art. 561) - Voluntary renunciation of all rights which a person may have over a
5. Presumption of Just Title (Art. 541) thing
6. Possession during Intervening Period (Art. 554)
7. Possession of Movables Things with Real Property (Art. 542) Who may abandon?
8. Exclusive Possession of Common Property (Art. 543) - Possessor
- Owner
Requisites for Presumption of Just Title o Abandonment of possession not necessarily abandonment of
ownership
1. Actual/Constructive Possession
2. Possession in the concept of an owner Requisites of Abandonment
1. Abandoner must have been a possessor in the concept of an owner
Notes: 2. Abandoner must have the capacity to renounce/alienate
- Presumption of Just Title is prima facie, and shall prevail until the 3. There must be physical relinquishment
contrary is proved 4. There must be no more expectation to recover (spes recuperandi)
- Good Faith ceases by receipt of Judicial Summons (Art. 551) and intent to get back (animus revertendi)
Effect of Abandonment
- Res Nullius (only applicable to movable property)
1. Co-Owners
a. Before partition: Co-possession Assignment
b. Upon partition: Each co-owner is exclusive possession, - An act whereby the debtor abandons all of his/her properties to
retroactive from the time co-ownership started his/her creditors, for the latter to apply the proceeds of the sale of
the said properties to the debts.
- May be either Gratuitous or Onerous
- As further discussed in the chapter below on Prescription, - Usually done for a very small consideration
possession may be interrupted naturally or civilly
Destruction
- In case the possession of a portion of the property co-owned was
naturally interrupted, such interruption shall affect that portion - Not only those that are intentionally caused, but also those
only. But it will affect whoever acquires that portion, regardless of through accident
who caused the interruption - Loss definition (1189)
Loss more than 1 year
- Material Possession / Possession de facto
- Cannot recover the property through accion interdictal

Article 557
The possession of immovables and of real rights is not deemed lost, or transferred
for purposes of prescription to the prejudice of third persons, except in accordance
with the provisions of the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration laws.

Article 558
Acts relating to possession, executed or agreed to by one who possesses a thing
belonging to another as a mere holder to enjoy or keep it, in any character, do not
bind or prejudice the owner, unless he gave said holder express authority to do such
acts, or ratifies them subsequently.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 42 85
 VII. Possession || I. Possession of Movables || Interruption of Possession
Possession cannot be recovered if/through:

CASE ON GOOD FAITH

Article 556 Cordero v Cabral (1983)
The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as they remain under the Possession in good faith ceases upon summons.
control of the possessor, even though for the time being he may not know their The possessor must reimburse the fruits received
whereabouts and those which th e legitimate possessor could
have received after being served with summons.
Article 559
The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Corderos heirs tried to possess what they inherited from
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof their mother but instead they found Cabral to be in
may recover it from the person in possession of the same. possession and claiming to be the owner thereof. They
If the possessor of a movable lost or which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, FACTS: thus sued to eject Cabral, and summons was served.
has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
Cabral claims to be the owner (via oral sale), and if not, as
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
a possessor in good faith and therefore not liable to
When is a movable lost? reimburse the fruits.
- When the thing is not anymore under the control of the possessor Who is the lawful possessor?
Who is entitled to the fruits?
- No way to recover the property ISSUES:
(The ownership issue was not touched by SC bc it was only
- Not lost if the possessor does not know, for the time being, that the
raised on appeal to the CA)
thing is lost or of its exact whereabouts
CABRAL WAS A POSSESSOR IN GF. CORDEROS HEIRS ARE
When is Possession of a Movable equivalent to Title? ENTITLED TO THE FRUITS. Cabral, after summons,
Bad Faith RATIO: became a possessor in bad faith and must now reimburse
-
Never equivalent to title all fruits to the heirs, from the time of the service of
o Owner can recover without reimbursement summons.
Good Faith
- G.R.: Possessor has title,
o Owner needs to reimburse to recover
- E: If owner lost or was unlawfully deprived
o No need to reimburse to recover
- EE: If person acquired it in a public sale
o Need to reimburse the price paid at the public sale

Concept of irreivindicability
- Presumption of ownership (Possessor in GF)
o To facilitate commerce and trade
- Right of ownership is an exception

What is unlawful deprivation?

- Criminal acts, etc.
- No need for conviction

Possession cannot be recovered if/through:

- Acquired in markets, fairs or merchant store
- Title is lost through prescription
- Possessor is a holder in due course of a negotiable document of
title to goods19
- Judicial sale / order
- Estoppel by owner

Notes:
- Possession is lost upon juridical control of another
- Title = juridical act and not a document (just in cases of movables)
- Lost = Missed or misplaced
- Unlawful Deprivation = Taken through a crime (robbery, theft,
estafa)

19
Art 1132
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 43 85
 VIII. Usufruct || A. Usufruct in General || Concept of Usufruct
Accidental Characteristics

VIII. Usufruct
USUFRUCT EASEMENT
Real / Personal Property Only Real Property
Article 562 Enjoyment of ALL uses and fruits Limited to a particular use
Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of Usufruct is constituted on the Easement may be constituted on a
preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law
property, not on the easement property which is held in usufruct
otherwise provides.
Extinguished by death of Not extinguished by death of owner
Article 563 usufructuary of estate
Usufruct is constituted by law, by the will of private persons expressed in acts inter SIMILARITIES
vivos or in a last will and testament, and by prescription.
Real rights
Article 564 May be registered (if the object is a real property)
Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits of the thing, in favor May be ordinarily be alienated or transmitted in accordance with the
of one more persons, simultaneously or successively, and in every case from or to a formalities set by law
certain day, purely or conditionally. It may also be constituted on a right, provided it
is not strictly personal or intransmissible.

Article 565
USUFRUCT LEASE
The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those provided in the title
constituting the usufruct; in default of such title, or in case it is deficient, the GENERAL Generally covers all fruits Generally covers only a
provisions contained in the two following Chapters shall be observed. EFFECT and uses particular or specific use
NATURE OF Always a real right Only a real right if lease is
THE RIGHT registered or is more than
one year
- Usufruct = just utendi + jus fruendi
WHO Can be created only by the May be done by a non-
- Full Ownership = Naked Ownership + Usufruct
CREATES owner or by a duly owner, if allowed by the
- Usufruct is a real right, of a temporary nature, which authorizes its
THE RIGHT authorized agent contract (sub-leasing)
holder to enjoy all the benefits which result from the normal
enjoyment of anothers property ORIGIN May be created by law, May be created only by
contract, last will or contract or by way of
- There is an obligation to return it, depending upon the stipulations
prescription exception by law (BPS rules,
on the title or by provision of law
Implied new lease, etc.)
- Limited usufruct jus fruendi only
CAUSE Owner is more or less Owner is more or less active
passive (allows the (makes the lessee enjoy the
usufructuary enjoy the property)
1. Essential Characteristics property)
2. Natural Characteristic
DUTY TO Duty of usufructuary to Lessee generally has no
REPAIR ordinary and necessary duty to repair
repairs
Essential Characteristics TAXES Usufructuary pays for the Generally no tax burden
1. A real right annual charges and taxes on
2. Of Temporary nature/duration the fruits
3. Purpose is to enjoy the benefits and derive all advantages from the ABILITY TO Usufructuary may lease the Lessee cannot constitute a
object as a consequence of normal use / exploitation TRANSFER property usufruct on the property
RIGHTS leased
Natural Characteristics
- Obligation of conserving / preserving the form and substance
- Generally, the usufruct is extinguished upon the death of the
usufructuary
AS TO ORIGIN - Legal (e.g. parental usufruct over minors property)
Accidental Characteristics
1. Pure / Conditional usufruct - Conventional
2. Duration o Inter vivos (e.g. Donations)
3. Person(s) favored o Mortis causa (e.g. Succession)
- Prescriptive
AS TO QUANTITY - Total
(FRUITS) - Partial
1. To prevent extraordinary exploitation
2. To prevent abuse, which is common AS TO EXTENT - Universal
3. To prevent impairment (PROPERTY) - Particular
AS TO NUMBER - Simple/Single
OF PERSONS - Multiple
1. Real/Personal Property ENJOYING THE
2. Sterile/Productive Property RIGHT
3. May be created over a transmissible right AS TO - Over Rights
QUALITY/KIND - Over Things
OF OBJECT o Normal/Perfect/Regular (Non-Consumable)
1. Action to protect the usufruct o Abnormal/Imperfect/Irregular (Consumable)
2. Action to protect the exercise of the usufruct AS TO TERMS / - Pure (No Condition)
CONDITIONS - Conditional
- With a term/period
o Ex die From a day certain
o In diem Up to a certain day
o Ex die in diem From a certain day up to a certain day

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 44 85
 VIII. Usufruct || B. Rights of the Usufructuary || Rules governing Usufruct
Accidental Characteristics

Article 567
- Agreement of Parties to principally govern the usufruct. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct begins, belong to
o Absence of which, the Civil Code applies the usufructuary.
- In case of conflict, the contract shall prevail Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the owner.
o Unless the stipulation is repugnant to the mandatory In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct, has no
provisions of the Civil Code20 obligation to refund to the owner any expenses incurred; but the owner shall be
obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of
the growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar
CASES ON USUFRUCT IN GENERAL expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
Hemedes v. CA (1999) The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third persons,
When naked ownership is transferred and acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of the usufruct.
usufruct retained, a subsequent transfer is void
because the usufruct can no longer convey
what has already been conveyed. Fruits Pending at the Beginning of Usufruct
- Belong to the Usufructuary
An annotation of usufructuary rights does not
impose upon the prospective buyer the - No necessity of refunding the owner of the property for necessary
obligation to investigate the validity of the expenses incurred by the latter
o But this is without prejudice to the rights of 3rd persons
sellers title. The usufructuary only enjoys the
(BPS rules)
jus utendi and jus fruendi of the thing, and the
jus disponendi is retained by the owner/seller.
Fruits Pending at the Termination of Usufruct
Justa conveyed her property to her daughter, Maxima, but
retained its usufruct. Maxima then registered the property - Belong to the Owner
and annotated her mothers usufruct. Maxima later - Must reimburse the usufructuary for ordinary cultivation expenses
mortgaged the property to R&B Insurance, which the and for the seeds and similar expenses, from the proceeds of the
FACTS: latter foreclosed when Maxima defaulted. Three years fruits
later, Justa conveyed the same property to her son Enrique o Rights of 3rd persons may not be prejudiced
(who was taking care of her), and he later sold it to
Dominium Realty, which Dominium leased to Asia ACCRUES WHEN?
Brewery. This is a suit by Enrique to annul R&Bs title. PERENNIAL CROPS From the moment the fruits
ISSUE: Who is the owner: R&B Insurance or Dominium Realty? actually appear on the trees
R&B INSURANCE. This is because (1) Justas subsequent ANNUAL CROPS From the moment their seedlings
RATIO: transfer to Enrique is void and (2) R&B Insurance is a appear from the ground
mortgagee in good faith.
CIVIL FRUITS Daily

Hernaez, Alunan v. Veloso (1928) - Note that there can never be

pending civil fruits. They
A usufruct of money is allowed.
immediately belong to the
In Rosendo Hernaezs intestate proceedings, the usufructuary/owner
administrator, Rafael Alunan, opposed to the share of the
FACTS: widow in the partition of money because he argued that a
Article 568
usufructuary could not be entitled to the partition of
If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements given in usufruct, and the
money, there being no usufruct of money.
usufruct should expire before the termination of the lease, he or his heirs and
Can there be a usufruct of money even though it is successors shall receive only the proportionate share of the rent that must be paid
ISSUE:
fungible? by the lessee.
YES. Well, the ratio is essentially that. Look at the case.
RATIO: Lol Article 569
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the usufructuary in
proportion to the time the usufruct may last.

Article 570
Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive a rent or periodical
pension, whether in money or in fruits, or in the interest on bonds or securities
1. Possession and Enjoyment of the thing
payable to bearer, each payment due shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits
a. To receive and benefit from the fruits of such right.
b. To enjoy any increase through accessions and servitudes
Whenever it consists in the enjoyment of benefits accruing from a participation
2. To lease the thing in any industrial or commercial enterprise, the date of the distribution of which
3. To mortgage the right of usufruct is not fixed, such benefits shall have the same character.
a. EXCEPTION: Parental Usufruct In either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be applied in the
4. To alienate the right of usufruct manner prescribed in the preceding article.
5. To improve the thing
a. But not to alter its form/substance, unless authorized Article 572
The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it to another,
or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a gratuitous title; but all the contracts
Article 566 he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the
The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil fruits of usufruct, saving leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as subsisting
the property in usufruct. With respect to hidden treasure which may be found on during the agricultural year
the land or tenement, he shall be considered a stranger.

G.R.: Even if alienated, original usufructuary still remains as usufructuary

1. Natural
2. Civil
3. Industrial

20
Fabie v. Gutierrez David
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 45 85

G.R.: Leases end before or at the termination of the Usufruct
E: Property is rural lands, which will subsist during the agricultural year
Notes:
- Doesnt need the consent of the owner to alienate the right of
usufruct
G.R.: Civil Fruits are deemed to accrue proportionately to the naked owner
and usufructuary for the time the usufruct lasts
Notes:
- Rent, Pension, Benefits, etc. accrue when they are due (proceeds of
the fruits)
Article 571
The usufructuary shall have the right to enjoy any increase which the thing in
usufruct may acquire through accession, the servitudes established in its favor,
and, in general, all the benefits inherent therein.
G.R.: Usufruct has the right to the enjoyment of accessions, servitudes,
easements and all benefits inherent in the property
Article 573
Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without being consumed,
gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the usufructuary shall have the
right to make use thereof in accordance with the purpose for which they are
intended, and shall not be obliged to return them at the termination of the
usufruct except in their condition at that time; but he shall be obliged to
indemnify the owner for any deterioration they may have suffered by reason
of his fraud or negligence.
Article 574
Whenever the usufruct includes things which cannot be used without being
consumed, the usufructuary shall have the right to make use of them under the
obligation of paying their appraised value at the termination of the usufruct, if
they were appraised when delivered. In case they were not appraised, he shall
have the right to return at the same quantity and quality, or pay their current price
at the time the usufruct ceases.
- If the deterioration is because of time or normal use
o He is not responsible
o He can return them in them in the condition they are at
the termination of the usufructuary, as only
preservation is required of the Usufructuary
- If the deterioration is caused by an event or act that endangers
their preservation (tantamount to damage from use)
o He is to make the necessary/ordinary repairs
- If there is fraud that caused the deterioration
o Usufructuary is responsible for the deterioration
G.R.: Usufruct can use them, with complete right of pledge/alienation
But he must either:
o Pay the appraised value (if appraised when first
delivered)
o Return the same kind, quality and quantity
o Pay the price current at the termination of the usufruct
Article 575
The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs may make use of the dead
trunks, and even of those cut off or uprooted by accident, under the obligation to
replace them with new plants
Article 576
If in consequence of a calamity or extraordinary event, the trees or shrubs shall
have disappeared in such considerable number that it would not be possible or
it would be too burdensome to replace them, the usufructuary may leave the
dead, fallen or uprooted trunks at the disposal of the owner, and demand that the
latter remove them and clear the land.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VIII. Usufruct || B. Rights of the Usufructuary || Rule on Leasing by the Usufructuary
Notes:
G.R.: Usufruct can use them
But he must replace them with new plants
If a calamity or extraordinary event caused the disappearance of the
trees/shrubs:
o He may use them but replace them
o He may leave the dead, fallen, or uprooted trunks at the
owners disposal, and demand the latter to remove
them and clear the land
o If it is slightly burdensome to replace them, then
usufructuary must replace them
Article 579
The usufructuary may make on the property held in usufruct such useful
improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as he may deem proper, provided
he does not alter its form or substance; but he shall have no right to be
indemnified therefor. He may, however, remove such improvements, should it be
possible to do so without damage to the property.
Article 580
The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have made on the
property against any damage to the same.
G.R.: Usufructuary may introduce useful and luxurious improvements so
long as they do not alter the form/substance of the thing
E: If the owner consents to the major improvements
Notes:
- The usufructuary has no right of indemnity for such improvements
o But such improvements may be removed if it will not
cause damage to the principal thing
- The usufructuary may compensate/set-off such improvements
over the damages for which he is liable to the owner
o If costs of improvements > liability for damages, excess
is paid to the usufructuary only if the improvement is
removable (Manresa)
o Option is given to the usufructuary, compare to
Possessors in GF, where it is given to the owner
Article 577
The usufructuary of woodland may enjoy all the benefits which it may produce
according to its nature.
If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the usufructuary may
do such ordinary cutting or felling as the owner was in the habit of doing, and in
default of this, he may do so in accordance with the custom of the place, as to the
manner, amount and season.
In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to
prejudice the preservation of the land.
In nurseries, the usufructuary may make the necessary thinnings in order that the
remaining trees may properly grow.
With the exception of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the
usufructuary cannot cut down trees unless it be to restore or improve some of the
things in usufruct, and in such case shall first inform the owner of the necessity for
the work.
Article 578
The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or a real right, or any
movable property, has the right to bring the action and to oblige the owner
thereof to give him the authority for this purpose and to furnish him whatever
proof he may have. If in consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires
the thing claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion
remaining with the owner.
Article 582
The usufructuary of a part of a thing held in common shall exercise all the rights
pertaining to the owner thereof with respect to the administration and the
collection of fruits or interest. Should the co-ownership cease by reason of the
division of the thing held in common, the usufruct of the part allotted to the co-
owner shall belong to the usufructuary.
46 85

Article 591
If the usufruct be constituted on a flock or herd of livestock, the usufructuary
shall be obliged to replace with the young thereof the animals that die each year
from natural causes, or are lost due to the rapacity of beasts of prey.
If the animals on which the usufruct is constituted should all perish, without the
fault of the usufructuary, on account of some contagious disease or any other
uncommon event, the usufructuary shall fulfill his obligation by delivering to the
owner the remains which may have been saved from the misfortune.
Should the herd or flock perish in part, also by accident and without the fault of
the usufructuary, the usufruct shall continue on the part saved.
Should the usufruct be on sterile animals, it shall be considered, with respect to
its effects, as though constituted on fungible things.
Article 598
If the usufruct be constituted on the whole of a patrimony, and if at the time of
its constitution the owner has debts, the provisions of Articles 758 and 759 relating
to donations shall be applied, both with respect to the maintenance of the usufruct
and to the obligation of the usufructuary to pay such debts.
The same rule shall be applied in case the owner is obliged, at the time the
usufruct is constituted, to make periodical payments, even if there should be no
known capital.
Article 600
The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be obliged to pay the debt
for the security of which the mortgage was constituted.
Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the
debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may
lose by reason thereof.
1. Of periodical pension, income, dividends (Art. 570)
2. Of Woodland
3. Of right of action to recover real property, real right, or movable
property
4. Of part of property owned in common
5. Of the entire patrimony of a person
6. On a mortgaged immovable
7. On a flock or herd of livestock
Usufruct on Vineyards and Woodlands (Art. 577)
- The usufructuary should follow the practices of the owner
- In default thereof, the customs of the place should be observed
- The usufructuary must replace dead trees, unless
impossible/burdensome
Usufruct on a Right of Action (Art. 578)
- Applicable to real property, real rights and personal property
- Can demand from the naked owner authority to bring the action or
any proof that usufructuary can recover
- Recovery of the usufruct upon the thing (not ownership)
Usufruct on Co-Owned Property (Art. 582)
- The usufructuary takes the place of the owner as to:
o Management
o Fruits
o Interest
- Upon partition, the usufruct is transferred to the part allotted to
the co-owner
Usufruct on Entire patrimony of a person (Art. 598)
G.R.: Usufructuary is not liable for the owners debts
E: When it is so stipulated:
- Usufructuary shall be liable for the debt specified
- Absence such specification, he is liable only for debts incurred
before the usufruct was constituted
When the usufruct is constituted in fraud of creditors
* In no case shall the usufructuary be responsible for debts exceeding the benefits under
the usufruct
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VIII. Usufruct || B. Rights of the Usufructuary || Other Special Usufructs
Usufruct on Cattle/Livestock (Art. 591)
Usufruct on Mortgaged Property (Art. 600)
- The owner is liable for damages in case of foreclosure
- The usufructuary is not liable for mortgage debts
Usufruct on Cattle/Livestock (Art. 591)
- On sterile stock (does not provide fruits):
o Same rules on consumable property
- On fruitful stock:
o Replace ordinary (usual) losses with the young
o If a part of the stock perishes, the usufruct subsists on
the remainder
o If all perish, the usufructuary shall deliver the remains
to the owner
The loss must be due to some uncommon
event
CASES ON RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
Bachrach v. Seifert and Elianoff (1950)
Pennsylvania Rule: All earnings in whatever form
made during the lifetime of the usufruct belong
to the usufructuary. This includes stock
dividends.
Bachrach constituted a lifetime usufruct in favor of his
wife, Mary. Part of his property consists of 108k shares in
Atok Big Wedge Mining, which produced 54k in stock
FACTS:
dividends. Bachrachs heirs argue that stock dividends are
part of the capital, while the widow argues that it is a civil
fruit.
Are stock dividends part of the capital or are they fruits?
ISSUE:
(If they are fruits, they naturally go to the usufructuary)
FRUITS. Mary, as usufructuary, is therefore the one
entitled to the 54k shares in stock dividends. As civil fruits,
RATIO: they may be sold independently of the capital. Moreover,
the Corporation Code provides that only surplus profits
may constitute dividends.
The other rule, called the massachusetts rule, provides
OBITER: that stock dividends are part of the capital.
Fabie v David (1945)
The right of administration is implied with every
usufruct.
Rosario (have you noticed that an inordinate number of
litigants in Property are named Rosario?) constituted a
usufruct on the rents of 2 properties in favor of her
daughter, Josefa. Grey, on the other hand, became the
naked owner of 1 property. The lessee in that property
FACTS:
was Ngo Soo. One day, Josefa demanded that Ngo vacate
because her own house burned down and she needed a
place to stay. Ngo refused, claiming that a usufructuary
is only entitled to the fruits and has no right of
administration.
Does the right of usufruct come with the right of
ISSUE:
administration?
YES. Considering Rosarios will, the stipulation of the
parties (in trial), the previous judgment of the lower
court and the fact that Grey only collects the rents
merely as Josefas agent, it is inevitable to conclude that
Josefa has the right to administer the property. To allow
RATIO:
the naked owner to choose the tenant and fix the rent is
to place the usufructuary at his mercy, without any
power to protect, enforce and enjoy the usufruct. The
usufructuary also has the right to choose the tenant as
herself.
Tie up the right to administer with the obligations in
REGALADO: usufruct (e.g. Bond, taxes, usufructuary must give up
administration to the owner if bond is not paid)
47 85

Article 581
The owner of property the usufruct of which is held by another, may alienate it,
but he cannot alter its form or substance, or do anything thereon which may be
prejudicial to the usufructuary.
1. Retain title
2. May alienate but:
- Not change form or substance
- Not do anything prejudicial to the usufructuary
3. May construct buildings, improvements, plantings
- But value of usufruct should not be impaired
- Rights of the usufructuary should not be impaired, and
can still be enjoyed by the usufructuary
- Bound to respect the usufruct, if the same is registered
- GF BF will apply
CASE ON OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
Board of Assessment Appeals of Zamboanga v Samar Mining
(1971)
Roads constructed on any kind of government
land shall not be subject to real taxes.
Samar Mining decided to construct the 42-km Samico
road as a convenient means of hauling its ores from its
mine site to the pier area. As the road would be traversing
public lands, the company filed with the Bureau of Lands
FACTS: and Bureau of Forestry lease applications for a road right
of way. Because of the construction, BAA assessed them
to pay P1.117M for real taxes. Samar Mining contends that
since the road was built on alienable public land, the road
should be exempt from real taxes.
ISSUE: WON Samar Mining should pay the real taxes.
NO. It is well settled that a real tax, being a burden upon
capital, should be paid by the owner of the land, not the
usufructuary. Appellee is but a partial usufructuary of the
RATIO: road in question. Under Sec.3 of CA 470, all properties
owned by the government, without any distinction, are
exempt from taxation. Samico road, as owned by the
government, falls within the said exemption.
Article 583
The usufructuary, before entering upon the enjoyment of the property, is obliged:
(1) To make, after notice to the owner or his legitimate representative, an
inventory of all the property, which shall contain an appraisal of the
movables and a description of the condition of the immovables;
(2) To give security, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon
him in accordance with this Chapter.
Article 584
The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not apply to the donor who
has reserved the usufruct of the property donated, or to the parents who are
usufructuaries of their children's property, except when the parents contract a
second marriage
Article 585
The usufructuary, whatever may be the title of the usufruct, MAY be excused
from the obligation of making an inventory or of giving security, when no one will
be injured thereby.
Article 586
Should the usufructuary fail to give security in the cases in which he is bound to
give it, the owner MAY demand that the immovables be placed under
administration, that the movables be sold, that the public bonds, instruments of
credit payable to order or to bearer be converted into registered certificates or
deposited in a bank or public institution, and that the capital or sums in cash and
the proceeds of the sale of the movable property be invested in safe securities.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
VIII. Usufruct || C. Rights of other parties during the usufruct || rights of owner
Caucion Juratoria (bond by oath)
The interest on the proceeds of the sale of the movables and that on public
securities and bonds, and the proceeds of the property placed under
administration, shall belong to the usufructuary.
Furthermore, the owner MAY, if he so prefers, until the usufructuary gives
security or is excused from so doing, retain in his possession the property in
usufruct as administrator, subject to the obligation to deliver to the usufructuary
the net proceeds thereof, after deducting the sums which may be agreed upon or
judicially allowed him for such administration.
Article 587
If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by virtue of a promise
under oath, the delivery of the furniture necessary for his use, and that he and
his family be allowed to live in a house included in the usufruct, the court may
grant this petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.
The same rule shall be observed with respect to implements, tools and other
movable property necessary for an industry or vocation in which he is engaged.
If the owner does not wish that certain articles be sold because of their artistic
worth or because they have a sentimental value, he may demand their delivery
to him upon his giving security for the payment of the legal interest on their
appraised value.
Article 588
After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he shall have a right to all
the proceeds and benefits from the day on which, in accordance with the title
constituting the usufruct, he should have commenced to receive them.
1. To make an inventory
2. To give a bond for the faithful performance of the usufructuarys
responsibilities.
To make an inventory
- Owner must be previously notified of the process of inventorying
(but no need to be present)
- The condition of the immovables must be described
- The value of movables must be appraised
- Form: Any form UNLESS it is an immovable, therefore a public
instrument is needed (to bind third parties)
- Expenses: By usufructuary
EXCEPTIONS to this requirement:
- If no one will be prejudiced/injured
o Provided that naked owner consents
- Waiver of naked owner, or by the law, or by stipulation
To give a bond for the faithful performance of the usufructuarys
responsibilities.
- No particular form required by law (cash bond, personal bond,
caucion juratoria)
- Effect of bond retroacts to the time he should have begun to
receive the fruits / establishment of the usufruct
EXCEPTIONS to this requirement:
- If the owner waives the obligation
- If no one will be prejudiced
o Discretion by naked owner/authorized person
- When the usufruct is reserved by the donor / parents
o Except if the parent remarries OR if the childs property
exceeds P50,000
Caucion Juratoria (bond by oath)
- A sworn duty to take good care of the property and return the
same at the end of the usufruct. It takes the place of the
bond/security and is based on necessity and human compassion
- Approval of such petition depends on the circumstances
- Requisites:
o Proper court petition
o Necessity for delivery of furniture, implements, tools, or
house included in the usufruct
o Approval of the court
o Sworn promise
- Contents of the petition:
o To use it, to take care of it, necessity of use
48 85
 VIII. Usufruct || D. Obligations of the Usufructuary || Obligations of the Usufructuary during the usufruct
Repairs

- Effects of Approval: Article 596

o Usufructuary cannot alienate/lease the property
o If owner wants to retain things with sentimental
property, owner to give security for obligation to give
interest to usufructuary
Effect of failure to make an inventory (Authors notes)
- Code is silent on this. Reyes and Paras believe that the effects on
non-filing of bond will apply, given that both obligations have the
same purpose: protection of the interests of the owner
Effects of failure to file a bond
1. Owner has the following options:
a. Still deliver the property to the usufructuary, even in the
absence of the security, subject to a possible later
demand for such security
b. Protect the immovable/movable properties, to wit:
i. Immovables be placed under administration
ii. Movables be sold
iii. Public bonds and instruments of credits
(payable to bearer or not) be converted into
registered certificates OR deposited in a bank or
public institution
iv. Capitals/sums in cash and the proceeds of the
sale of the movable property be invested in safe
securities
- Interests of such shall belong to the
usufructuary
c. Retention of the property as administrator/manager
i. But the owner is obliged to deliver to the
usufructuary the net proceeds of the properties
less costs of administrations
2. Rights of the Usufructuary
a. The usufructuary cannot possess the property until he
gives the security
b. The usufructuary cannot administer the property
c. The usufructuary cannot collect credits due or make
investments of the capital
i. EXCEPT if the owner or the Court consents to
such or until the bond is given
d. But the usufructuary can still alienate his right to the
usufruct
Article 589
The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in usufruct as a good father
of a family.
Article 590
A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of usufruct shall answer for any
damage which the things in usufruct may suffer through the fault or negligence of
the person who substitutes him.
Article 592
The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs needed by the thing
given in usufruct.
By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the wear and tear due to
the natural use of the thing and are indispensable for its preservation. Should the
usufructuary fail to make them after demand by the owner, the latter may make
them at the expense of the usufructuary.
Article 593
Extraordinary repairs shall be at the expense of the owner. The usufructuary is
obliged to notify the owner when the need for such repairs is urgent.
Article 594
If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he shall have a right to
demand of the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount expended for the time
that the usufruct lasts.
Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the preservation of the
thing, the usufructuary may make them; but he shall have a right to demand of the
owner, at the termination of the usufruct, the increase in value which the immovable
may have acquired by reason of the repairs.
Article 595
The owner may construct any works and make any improvements of which the
immovable in usufruct is susceptible, or make new plantings thereon if it be rural,
provided that such acts do not cause a diminution in the value of the usufruct or
prejudice the right of the usufructuary.
The payment of annual charges and taxes and of those considered as a lien on the
fruits, shall be at the expense of the usufructuary for all the time that the usufruct
lasts.
Article 597
The taxes which, during the usufruct, may be imposed directly on the capital, shall
be at the expense of the owner.
If the latter has paid them, the usufructuary shall pay him the proper interest on
the sums which may have been paid in that character; and, if the said sums have
been advanced by the usufructuary, he shall recover the amount thereof at the
termination of the usufruct.
Article 599
The usufructuary MAY claim any matured credits which form a part of the usufruct
if he has given or gives the proper security. If he has been excused from giving
security or has been able to give it, or if that given is not sufficient, he shall need
the authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to collect such
credits.
The usufructuary who has given security MAY use the capital he has collected in
any manner he may deem proper. The usufructuary who has not given security
shall invest the said capital at interest upon agreement with the owner; in default
of such agreement, with judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security
sufficient to preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct.
Article 601
The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of any act of a third person,
of which he may have knowledge, that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership,
and he shall be liable should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused
through his own fault.
Article 602
The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with regard to the usufruct
shall be borne by the usufructuary.
1. Duty to take care of the property
2. Ordinary repairs
3. Payment of taxes and charges
4. Notification to owner for extraordinary repairs
5. Payment for Costs of Litigation
6. Liability in case of fault/negligence of alienee/lessee/agent
To take care of the thing with ordinary diligence
- Bad use does not extinguish a usufruct
- If the usufructuary abuses the property, owner is entitled to
demand its administration, subject to the transfer of the net
proceeds to the usufructuary + damages
Repairs
1. Usufructuary is required to make necessary / ordinary repairs
a. These consists of repairs to damages:
i. Due to the normal and natural use
ii. Indispensable for the preservation of the
form and substance of the property
iii. During the life of the usufruct
b. No reimbursement from naked owner
2. Owner may make ordinary repairs at his own expense
a. But he may also demand that the usufructuary do such
ordinary repairs. Failure of the usufructuary to heed
such demand shall entitle the owner to reimbursements
3. Owner is required to spend for extraordinary repairs
a. These are due to exceptional circumstances causing
such damage or from normal/natural use but
unnecessary for preservation
b. Notification to owner of the necessity of repairs is
required to oblige the owner to urgently repair the
damage
c. Owner is not required to make the repair. Only required
to spend for it.
d. If owner spends for the repairs, usufructuary to pay
legal interest on the expenses during the usufruct
e. If usufructuary spends for the repairs (only if such are
indispensable), he may demand owner the increase in
value at the end of the usufruct
i. Right of retention is available as a defense

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 49 85
 VIII. Usufruct || D. Extinguishment of the Usufruct || Causes for the termination of the usufruct
Rules governing the existence of an insurance policy

DETERIORATION (ART. 573) (ART. 592) DAMAGE

This is due to the normal wear and This is due to the normal and 1. Death of the Usufructuary, EXCEPT:
tear thru time natural use of the thing and is a. In multiple usufructuary, it ends at the death of the last
indispensable for its preservation survivor
No requirement to restore the thing Required to return it to a b. If period is fixed by reference to the life of another, or
to its original state reasonable usable state there is a resolutory condition, it is transferred to the
heirs until the expiration of the term or the fulfillment
If damage is due to exceptional
of the condition
circumstances, owner must make
c. When a contrary intention clearly appears
extraordinary repairs
2. Expiration of the period / fulfillment of the resolutory condition
a. If Usufructuary = Juridical Person: Period cannot be
Taxes and Charges longer than 50 years
1. The following are paid by the usufructuary: b. Such period or condition must be recorded in order to
a. Annual taxes and charges on the fruits prejudice third persons
2. The following are paid by the owner: 3. Merger of the usufruct and the naked ownership
a. Taxes directly on the capital 4. Waiver by the usufructuary
i. If paid by owner, usufructuary is liable to the a. Renunciation must be express and does not need the
legal interest owners consent
ii. If paid by the usufructuary, right to demand b. If made in fraud of creditors, the waiver may be
payment or retention rescinded21
c. If the right of usufruct is mortgaged, the mortgage lasts
Notification of Owner until its payment, or the expiration of the period
- For urgent need for extraordinary repairs (whichever is earlier)
- Of any acts detrimental to the ownership 5. Extinction or loss of the property
- If an inventory at the beginning of the usufruct is required a. Total loss only
b. Partial loss = Usufructuary continues on the remainder
Costs of Litigation c. But if the property is lost through expropriation (legal
- Only applies when the usufructuary lost the case loss), see below
- But in cases of defense of the naked ownership of the property, 6. Expropriation by the state22
naked owner must spend for such costs a. Owner to replace the thing with another having the
Rules governing the destruction of property same value and conditions; or
USUFRUCT ON USUFRUCT ON THE BUILDING b. To pay legal interest on the expropriation money, giving
THE LAND security for payment
c. But the condemnor may indemnify separately the owner
BUILDING IS Usufruct continues over the land and the materials and the usufructuary, extinguishing the usufruct (Art.
DESTROYED 609 will not apply)
OPTION ON THE USE Usufruct has Land Owner has the preference 7. Resolution / Termination of the right
OF LAND the preference - If building is rebuilt, owner 8. Prescription
must pay interest on the a. This pertains to acquisitive prescription by a stranger (if
value of the land and the the usufructuary acquires the property by prescription,
material then merger happens)
9. Annulment
10. Rescission
Rules governing the existence of an insurance policy 11. Mutual withdrawal
BUILDING IS REBUILT BUILDING IS NOT 12. Legal causes ending legal usufruct (e.g. attainment of legal age)
REBUILT
INSURANCE TAKEN Usufruct continues over Usufructuary gets
Article 604
BY BOTH OWNER the building interest from the
If the thing given in usufruct should be lost only in part, the right shall continue on
AND insurance proceeds the remaining part.
USUFRUCTUARY
Article 605
Notes: Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for
more than fifty years. If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such
- The rules shall apply regardless of who/what caused the period the town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the
destruction of the building. usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof.
o Person at fault shall indemnify the naked owner
Article 606
A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person attains a
certain age, shall subsist for the number of years specified, even if the third person
should die before the period expires, unless such usufruct has been expressly granted
Article 603
only in consideration of the existence of such person.
Usufruct is extinguished:
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears; Article 607
(2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of which a building forms part,
fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the and the latter should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall
usufruct; have a right to make use of the land and the materials.
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;
The same rule shall be applied if the usufruct is constituted on a building only and the
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
same should be destroyed. But in such a case, if the owner should wish to construct
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
another building, he shall have a right to occupy the land and to make use of the
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
materials, being obliged to pay to the usufructuary, during the continuance of the
(7) By prescription.
usufruct, the interest upon the sum equivalent to the value of the land and of the
materials.

21
Art. 1381 22
Art. 609
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 50 85
 VIII. Usufruct || D. Extinguishment of the Usufruct || Obligations of the Usufructuary at the Expiration of the Usufruct
To indemnify the owner for losses due to the negligence of the usufructuary or of his transferees

Article 608 CASES ON EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE USUFRUCT

If the usufructuary shares with the owner the insurance of the tenement given in
usufruct, the former shall, in case of loss, continue in the enjoyment of the new
building, should one be constructed, or shall receive the interest on the insurance
indemnity if the owner does not wish to rebuild.
Should the usufructuary have refused to contribute to the insurance, the owner
insuring the tenement alone, the latter shall receive the full amount of the insurance
indemnity in case of loss, saving always the right granted to the usufructuary in the
preceding article.
Article 609
Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner shall be
obliged either to replace it with another thing of the same value and of similar
conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the
indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the latter
alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
Article 610
A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in usufruct; but if the abuse
should cause considerable injury to the owner, the latter may demand that the thing
be delivered to him, binding himself to pay annually to the usufructuary the net
proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the compensation which may
be allowed him for its administration.
Article 611
A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its
constitution shall not be extinguished until death of the last survivor.
Article 612
Upon the termination of the usufruct, the thing in usufruct shall be delivered to the
owner, without prejudice to the right of retention pertaining to the usufructuary or his
heirs for taxes and extraordinary expenses which should be reimbursed. After the
delivery has been made, the security or mortgage shall be cancelled.
To return the thing, EXCEPT
- If there is a right to retention for the plus value due to
extraordinary repairs and for taxes on the capital
1. If the property is deteriorable:
a. Return it in its present condition
b. To answer for damages due to his fault
2. If the property is consumable
a. If appraised, return the appraisal value
b. If not appraised, either:
i. Replace with a thing of the same quantity
and quality
ii. Return amount using market value at
termination
Pay interest on the amount spent by the owner for extraordinary repairs or
taxes on the capital
To indemnify the owner for losses due to the negligence of the usufructuary
or of his transferees
Baluran v Navarro (1977)
The title of a contract is not controlling. If its
substance reveals the intention to transfer the
right of enjoyment but not of ownership, it is a
usufruct.
Sps Paraiso entered into a contract denominated Barter
with Sps Baluran wherein each was to retain material
possession of their respective properties (riceland with
Baluran, residential lot with Paraiso), but the Sps Paraiso
were to reap the fruits on the riceland and Sps Baluran
were to build a house on Paraisos lot. Balurans right to
FACTS:
build, however, was subject to the resolutory condition
that if any of Paraisos grandchildren decided to build
their house on the lot, Baluran must pack up and leave.
True enough, Antonio, a grandson, decided to build his
house there. This is Antonios suit to recover that lot.
Baluran claims that the Barter contract is binding.
ISSUE: Is the contract one of Barter?
NO. This is a Usufruct with a resolutory condition.
Moreover, the condition is not potestative since it depends
RATIO: upon the will of a 3rd person. The Sps Baluran must
therefore vacate, and they may remove their house
provided it does not damage the lot.
NHA v CA, Bulacan Garden (2005)
The rights and obligations of the usufructuary
start and end with the title constituting it.
Marcos, thru Proclamation No. 1670, reserved 7 ha of
NHAs land as usufruct in favor of the Manila Seedling
Bank Foundation (MSBF). It was subject to a future survey
by MSBF, where MSBF essentially had the right to locate
the 7 ha. MSBF conducted 2 surveys (from Q.Ave
northward along EDSA). Thru the years, however, MSBF
FACTS:
encroached on adjacent NHA land totaling 16 ha. BGC, a
lessee of MSBF, was ordered by NHA to vacate because it
allegedly occupied a portion outside MSBFs usufruct. This
is BGCs suit for an injunction. During the course of the
proceedings, NHA also conducted a survey (Agham Rd to
EDSA).
ISSUE: Whose survey must prevail?
MSBFS. Clearly, MSBF was given the right to determine
the position of the 7 ha. Its survey must therefore prevail.
Furthermore, most of its main facilities and structures are
within the 7 ha. To prefer NHAs survey will strip MSBF of
most of its main facilities. MSBF, however, also has the
obligation to vacate the encroached area. MSBF abused its
RATIO:
right of usufruct by encroaching. Lastly, although Marcoss
PN did not state the period of the usufruct, it must not
exceed 50 years. To construe a usufruct as perpetual in
favor of a corporation is especially invidious in cases
where it involves public land. The usufruct was constituted
28 yrs. ago. Therefore, MSBF has 22 years left.

1. To collect reimbursements from the owner:

a. For indispensable extraordinary repairs
b. For taxes on capital advanced
c. For damages caused to the usufructuary
2. Right of retention
3. To remove the improvements made by him, but without injuring the
principal
4. To set off the value of improvements against damages caused by
him

1. To make reimbursements
2. To cancel the bond, upon discharge of the usufructuarys obligation
3. To respect leases of rural lands by the usufructuary for the balance
of the agricultural year

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 51 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || A. Easements in General || Different kinds of easements
Characteristics of Easements

IX. Easements or Servitudes Article 619

Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owners. The former
are called legal and the latter voluntary easements.

CONTINUOUS DISCONTINUOUS
Definition and Concept
Their use is or may be continuous Their use depends upon acts of
Article 613
even without intervention of man man, and their use is at long/short
An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the
intervals
benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant e.g. Beam supporting a house e.g. Right of way
estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate.
APPARENT NON-APPARENT
Article 614
Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more Those made known and continually Those which show no external sign
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. kept in view by external signs of their existence or enjoyment
e.g. Window in a party wall, a right e.g. Easement of subjacent and
Article 617
of way with a permanent path, an lateral support
Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.
easement of an aqueduct
Article 618
Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided between two or more POSITIVE NEGATIVE
persons, the easement is not modified, and each of them must bear it on the part which
corresponds to him.
Servient owner must either: The servient owner must refrain
(1) Allow something to be done from doing something, which if it
If it is the dominant estate that is divided between two or more persons, each of them
may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the place of its use, or making in his property were not because of the easement,
it more burdensome in any other way. (2) Do it himself it can be done lawfully
e.g. Branches or roots of a tree e.g. Easement of light and view in
your own wall
Definition:
- A real right on anothers property, whereby the servient owner
must refrain from doing something or the dominant owner is VOLUNTARY LEGAL
allowed to do something on the servient estate Constituted by the will of the Constituted by law
parties
Concept:
- It is an encumbrance only applicable to a corporeal immovable Characteristics of Easements
property
- It is a real right
- It is a limitation on the servient estate for anothers benefit
- It serves as an enjoyment over anothers property
- Servient Owner = Owner of the burdened immovable
- It is a limitation upon the servient owners rights for anothers
- Dominant Owner = Owner of the benefited immovable benefit
- It is inseparable from the tenement
Elements of a Servitude: - It cannot be alienated separately
1. Real right of limited use, without possession - If the servient tenement is divided, each shall bear their part in the
2. It is constituted over an immovable property servitude
3. It is for the benefit of another who is not the owner of the - Servitudes exist as long as the dominant and/or servient estates
encumbered estate exist
4. The servient estate must be owned by a different person
- When the court says than an easement exists, it does not create an
easement, but only declares its existence that was created by
EASEMENT LEASE law/by the parties
Always a real right A real right only when it is
registered
There is rightful limited use without There is rightful and limited use Article 620
ownership/possession and possession without ownership
Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of a title or by
Can refer only to immovable May involve real or personal prescription of ten years.
property property
Article 621
In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in the preceding article,
Kinds of Easements the time of possession shall be computed thus: in positive easements, from the day
on which the owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made use of
Article 615
the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate; and in negative
Easements may be continuous or discontinuous, apparent or nonapparent.
easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an
Continuous easements are those the use of which is or may be incessant, without the instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate,
intervention of any act of man. from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement.
Discontinuous easements are those which are used at intervals and depend upon the
acts of man. Article 622
Apparent easements are those which are made known and are continually kept in view Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or
by external signs that reveal the use and enjoyment of the same. not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
Nonapparent easements are those which show no external indication of their
Article 623
existence.
The absence of a document or proof showing the origin of an easement which cannot
Article 616 be acquired by prescription may be cured by a deed of recognition by the owner of the
servient estate or by a final judgment.
Easements are also positive or negative.
A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient estate the
obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself, and a negative
easement, that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something
which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 52 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || A. Easements in General || Rights and Obligations of the Owners of the Dominant and Servient Estates
Article 624
The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or
maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either of them be
alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively,
unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be
provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be
removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall also apply in case of
the division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.
By Title
- Continuous Servitudes (apparent/non-apparent)
- Discontinuous Servitudes (apparent/non-apparent)
By Prescription of 10 Years (regardless of GF/BF)
- Only applicable to Continuous - Apparent Servitudes
Counting of Periods
- Positive Easement
o From the day of commencement of exercise of use by
the dominant owner
- Negative Easement
o From the day of formal prohibition
Notarized demand is necessary
Interruptions of Prescriptive Period (see chapter on Prescription below)
Notes:
- A servient estate can acknowledge, on its own, the right of
easement by another
o If the servient owner does not want to acknowledge
another, the dominant estate can go to court
- Can an easement be acquired through succession?
o YES, since it is an accessory to the tenement.23
Right to easement: Accessory to dominant
estate
Burden of easement: Accessory to the
servient estate
CASES ON MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS
North Negros v Hidalgo (1936)
There is a voluntary easement of right of way in
favor of the community when the owner makes
his road accessible to the general public,
regardless of class or group of persons or
entities. The title in such a case is the fact that
the road was offered to the general public for
a fee.
Moreover, there is a forcible right of way when
the dominant estate has no access to the
provincial road except through the servient
estates private road.
North Negros opened a private road to the public. Hidalgo,
who had no access to the provincial road, used Norths
private road to transport tuba to his Saloon. North Negros
disapproved of this allegedly because its laborers became
FACTS: drunk and therefore unproductive. This is a suit for an
injunction by North Negros against Hidalgo. North Negros
claims that there is no easement of right of way because
an apparent and discontinuous easement can only be
constituted by title, which is lacking in this case.
Will the injunction suit prosper?
ISSUES:
Does Hidalgo enjoy an easement of right of way?
NO. The injunction must fail. To award an injunction, the
right must be established and there must be a strong case
for its necessity, both of which are absent in this case.
RATIO:
Moreover, an easement has been constituted on the road
(see doctrine). Lastly, the road is now charged with public
interest because its withdrawal has a public consequence.
23
Based on classroom discussion
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
By Prescription of 10 Years (regardless of GF/BF)
There could be no easement because a discontinuous
J.
easement can only be constituted by title. Public
LAURELS
interest has a technical meaning. The majority opinion
DISSENT
just undermined the right of ownership.
Municipality of Dumangas v Bishop of Jaro (1916)
Dumangas sought to register 6 lots,
which was opposed by the Roman
Catholic Church (RCC), among
others. RCC claims ownership of the
FACTS: central lot, claiming that it built a
church in the middle of it. (If this
was not the case, the church was built on the edge of
the lot. Churchgoers merely entered thru the side
entrance connected to the lot)
Who is the owner?
ISSUES:
Is there an easement?
MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS. Dumangas is the owner,
because it has been in possession for more than 30
years in the concept of an owner, and it has executed
acts of ownership which RCC did not object to.
THERE IS AN EASEMENT. More importantly, however,
RATIO:
an easement of right of way in favor of the church and
the public has been constituted. It has been acquired by
prescription, the easement being continuous. This is
shown by the fact that Dumangas never erected a
building thereon, nor has it ever executed any work
which may obstruct passage.
Amor v Florentino (1943)
Altius non tollendi do not build higher - (a
negative easement) and the easement of light
and view (a positive easement) are concomitant
easements and they always go hand in hand.
These easements are constituted in two ways:
(1) By title
(2) By prescription
Florentino owned a house and a camarin, which were
adjacent to each other. Her house had windows. In her will,
she gave the house to her son, Gabriel, and the camarin to
her daughter, Maria, along with its respective lots. Maria
sold the camarin to Amor, which Amor demolished and
FACTS:
built a 2-storey house instead. This is an injunction suit
filed by Gabriel to stop its construction based on the claim
that there is an easement of light and view. Despite the
suit, Amor continued and finished the construction of the
house.
ISSUES: Is there an easement of light and view?
YES. The easement was constituted by title: with the
windows as the external signs which constitute the title.
Moreover, it was also constituted by prescription, there
RATIO: being more than 10 years from when the windows were
first opened. Lastly, Amor could not be said to be in good
faith because she had the duty to inquire WRT the
significance of the windows.
Article 625
Upon the establishment of an easement, all the rights necessary for its use are
considered granted.
Article 626
The owner of the dominant estate cannot use the easement except for the benefit of
the immovable originally contemplated. Neither can he exercise the easement in any
other manner than that previously established.
53 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || A. Easements in General || Rights and Obligations of the Owners of the Dominant and Servient Estates
Notes:

Article 627 Notes:

The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own expense, on the servient - Use of an easement is limited to its original purpose
state any works necessary for the use and preservation of the servitude, but without - If the use is absent or vague in the stipulation, the needs of the
altering it or rendering it more burdensome. dominant estate shall be considered
For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate, and shall choose the - Presumption of equal benefits of the co-owned dominant estates
most convenient time and manner so as to cause the least inconvenience to the owner
of the servient estate. - The obligation to repair the easement does not appear anywhere in
the code. Thus, neither parties may compel the other to make
Article 628 repairs.
Should there be several dominant estates, the owners of all of them shall be obliged
to contribute to the expenses referred to in the preceding article, in proportion to the
CASES ON RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS OF THE
benefits which each may derive from the work. Anyone who does not wish to
contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the benefit of the DOMINANT AND SERVIENT ESTATES
others. Encarnacion v CA, Heirs of de Sagun (1991)
If the owner of the servient estate should make use of the easement in any manner Respondents own a land between Encarnacions estate
whatsoever, he shall also be obliged to contribute to the expenses in the proportion and the public highway. At some point, respondents built a
stated, saving an agreement to the contrary. 1-meter wide road in favor of petitioners. Encarnacion
then built a nursery, which flourished at some point in
Article 629
F A C T S : time. With this, he bought an owner-type jeep that
The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use
of the servitude. unfortunately was too wide for the road. He then asked
for the respondent to allow him to purchase additional
Nevertheless, if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the manner established
for the use of the easement, the same should become very inconvenient to the owner land for the expansion of the road. Respondent refused, as
of the servient estate, or should prevent him from making any important works, there was an old dried up river bed that petitioner can use.
repairs or improvements thereon, it may be changed at his expense, provided he offers I S S U E S : WON petitioner can demand the widening of the road
another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that no injury is caused YES. For the right of way to be demanded: (1) there should
thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to those who may have a right to the be absolutely no access to a public highway and (2) when,
use of the easement. even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use or is
Article 630 grossly insufficient. A semi-concrete bridge traverses the
The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of the portion on which the
riverbed route suggested and there is no ingress or egress
easement is established, and may use the same in such a manner as not to affect the from the highway. For the jeep to reach the level of the
exercise of the easement. highway, it must literally jump 4-5 meters up. Moreover,
R A T I O : during the rainy season, the riverbed is impassable due to
floods. When a private property has no access to a public
Rights of the Dominant Owner road, it has the right of easement over adjacent servient
1. To exercise the right of easement estates as a matter of law.
a. Includes all necessary rights for its use (also accessory Since the easement established is of a continuous and
easements) permanent nature, the indemnity shall consist of the
2. To do all the necessary work for the use and preservation of his value occupied and the amount of damage caused to the
easement servient estate pursuant to Art. 649 NCC.
a. At his own expense
b. No alteration or increase in the burden
Valderrama v North Negros (1925)
c. Notice must be given to the owner
An easement is for the benefit of the dominant
d. To choose the time and manner least inconvenient to
estate, and not for the servient estates. An
the servient owner
easement of right of way is altered only if the
3. To ask for a Mandatory Injunction to prevent the
impairment/obstruction in the exercise of the easement area is changed.
a. E.g. when the Servient Owner obstructs the easement Osorio had a milling contract with several hacienderos
4. To renounce totally the easement, if he desires to be exempt from (term: 30 yrs.) and it came with the easement of right of
contributing to the expenses way for Osorios trains to pass over the hacienderos lands
(term: 50 yrs.). North Negros later acquired all of Osorios
Obligations of the Dominant Owner
rights. The hacenderos production was insufficient, so
1. To contribute to the expenses of maintenance in proportion to the FACTS:
North Negros contracted with other hacenderos so that it
benefit (for co-ownership)
may avoid losses. This is a suit for injunction filed by the
a. But he may renounce, but renunciation must be total,
original hacenderos. They claimed that the transportation
since servitude is indivisible
of sugar cane over their land altered the nature of the
2. Not to alter or increase the burden of the servitude
easement and was more burdensome.
What is the extent of the easement?
Rights of the Servient Owner ISSUES: Has the easement been altered by North Negros contract
1. To retain ownership and possession of the servient estate with other hacenderos?
2. To change the location of the easement, when it becomes very IT IS A PUBLIC EASEMENT. The object of the contract is for
inconvenient for him OR it hinders any important works, repairs or all parties to mutually benefit from the proceeds of the
improvements on his property milling. To limit the use exclusively for their sugar means
a. He pays for the expenses of such transfer that only the adjacent hacienda will be serviced, and this
b. The substitute place must be equally convenient to the would render the contract ineffective. No benefit will
dominant owner come from such an arrangement. An easement is not for
c. No injury/prejudice to be caused to the dominant owner RATIO: the benefit of servient estates; it is for the benefit of the
3. To make use of the servient estate without affecting the easement dominant estate. Here, it is clear that there is no intention
or injuring the rights of the dominant owner to limit the use of the right of way. This shown by the fact
that the term of the easement surpasses the term of the
Obligations of the Servient Owner
milling contract, which means that it is possible for North
1. Not to impair the servitudes use in any manner
Negros to transfer sugar canes that are not the
2. To contribute to the expense of maintenance, if he makes use of
hacenderos
the servitude
3. To pay for the expenses incurred for the change of location or form
of the easement
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 54 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Modes of Extinguishment of Easements
Different kinds of Legal Easements

Other ways to extinguish, not mentioned in the Code

Article 631 1. Annulment, Rescission or Cancellation of the title to the servitude
Easements are extinguished: 2. Resolution of the right to create the servitude
(1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the dominant and servient 3. Expropriation of the servient estate
estates; 4. Permanent impossibility to the use of the easement
(2) By nonuser for ten years; with respect to discontinuous easements, this 5. Abandonment of the servient estate
period shall be computed from the day on which they ceased to be used; and, 6. Opening of an adequate outlet to the highway (for right of way)
with respect to continuous easements, from the day on which an act contrary
to the same took place;
(3) When either or both of the estates fall into such condition that the easement Notes:
cannot be used; but it shall revive if the subsequent condition of the estates - Extinguishment by only some of the co-owners only affects his
or either of them should again permit its use, unless when the use becomes right, since easements are indivisible
possible, sufficient time for prescription has elapsed, in accordance with the
provisions of the preceding number;
(4) By the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the condition, if the
easement is temporary or conditional;
(5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate;
(6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the dominant and Article 634
servient estates.
Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the interest of
Article 632 private persons.
The form or manner of using the easement may prescribe as the easement itself, and Article 635
in the same way.
All matters concerning easements established for public or communal use shall be
Article 633 governed by the special laws and regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence
thereof, by the provisions of this Title.
If the dominant estate belongs to several persons in common, the use of the
easement by any one of them prevents prescription with respect to the others. Article 636
Easements established by law in the interest of private persons or for private use
shall be governed by the provisions of this Title, without prejudice to the provisions of
Modes of extinguishment [ MP BERR ] general or local laws and ordinances for the general welfare.
1. Merger
These easements may be modified by agreement of the interested parties, whenever
2. Prescription the law does not prohibit it or no injury is suffered by a third person.
3. Bad Condition
4. Expiration of the term / fulfillment of a condition
5. Renunciation PRIVATE EASEMENTS PUBLIC EASEMENTS
6. Redemption CONCEPT Enjoyment of only the Enjoyment by the public
dominant owner
Merger RULES THAT 1. Agreement of the 1. Special Laws and
- Must be absolute, perfect and definite GOVERN parties Regulations
o In cases where there is temporary merger (pacto de 2. General Local Laws 2. Civil Code
retro sales, easements subject to a resolutory condition, and Ordinances
etc.), the easement is not extinguished, but is merely 3. Civil Code
suspended. Different kinds of Legal Easements
- It is not necessary that the whole servient estate merge with the 1. Easements relating to waters
dominant estate. As long as the portion with the easement merges 2. Right of Way
with the dominants, there is an extinguishment of the easement. 3. Party Wall
4. Light and View
Extinctive Prescription 5. Drainage
- Non-user for 10 years 6. Intermediate distances
o Discontinuous: Starts from the day they ceased to be 7. Easement against nuisance
used 8. Lateral and Subjacent Support
o Continuous: Starts from the day an act adverse to
the exercise takes place
- Servitudes not yet exercised cannot be extinguished by non-user Article 637
- Use by at least one co-owner prevents prescription Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the
- What if Force Majeure prevented the use of the estate? intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth
o Generally, it does not cause the prescriptive period to which they carry with them.
run. The cause should be a voluntary abstention of the The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this
right. easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase
the burden.

Bad Condition of the tenements, preventing exercise Article 638

- This is actually a suspension, because the easement can be revived. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private ownership, are
subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their
margins, to the easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage,
Renunciation by the Dominant Owner fishing and salvage.
- Must be specific, clear and express Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are, furthermore,
o Requirements under Art. 1358 will apply (must be in a subject to the easement of towpath for the exclusive service of river navigation and
public document) floatage.
But absence of such does not affect the If it be necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private ownership, the proper
indemnity shall first be paid.
validity of the renunciation
Article 639
Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river or brook, or for the use of
any other continuous or discontinuous stream, it should be necessary to build a dam,
and the person who is to construct it is not the owner of the banks, or lands which

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 55 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || easements relating to waters
Easement for a Stop Lock/Sluice Gate

must support it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a dam, after payment - The estate on the lower ground cannot do any works which will
of the proper indemnity. impede this easement
o Unless he provides an alternative method of drainage24
Article 640
Compulsory easements for drawing water or for watering animals can be imposed
- The provision does not provide an indemnity
only for reasons of public use in favor of a town or village, after payment of the proper Easement on Riparian Property25
indemnity.
- The use shall only be for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing,
Article 641 towage and salvage
Easements for drawing water and for watering animals carry with them the - Width:
obligation of the owners of the servient estates to allow passage to persons and o Urban Areas: 3 meters
animals to the place where such easements are to be used, and the indemnity shall o Agricultural Areas: 20 meters
include this service. o Forest Areas: 40 meters.
Article 657 (par. 2) - Payment of indemnity is required, if a person wishes to occupy
Whenever it is necessary to establish a compulsory easement of the right of way or for lands of private ownership
a watering place for animals, the provisions of this Section and those of Articles 640 Easement of a Dam
and 641 shall be observed. In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters.
- This is an easement for the construction, abutment or buttress of a
Article 642 dam
Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of which he can - Payment of indemnity is required
dispose shall have the right to make it flow through the intervening estates, with the o Absent such payment and the dam causes damage to
obligation to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon the adjoining property, such dam can be demolished as
which the waters may filter or descend.
it constitutes a private nuisance26
Article 643 - Authority from the DPWH and other proper agency is required in
One desiring to make use of the right granted in the preceding article is obliged: order to build or repair dams27
(1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is sufficient for the use Easement for Watering Animals
for which it is intended;
- Combined easement for drawing of water and right of way to the
(2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least
onerous to third persons; watering ground
(3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner determined by - It may be constituted only in favor of towns and villages
the laws and regulations. - It can only be imposed for public use
Article 644
- Width: Not to exceed 10 meters
The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be imposed on buildings, - Indemnity shall include payment for the right of way
courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on orchards or gardens already existing. Easement of an Aqueduct
Article 645 - This is a right to make water flow through intervening estates in
The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of the servient estate from order for an estate may make use of said waters
closing or fencing it, or from building over the aqueduct in such manner as not to - Character: Apparent and Continuous
cause the latter any damage, or render necessary repairs and cleanings impossible. o This is to make the easement acquirable by prescription
for the benefit of agriculture
Article 646
o But this does not mean that the dominant owner cannot
For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as continuous and
close it or that he cannot intermittently use it
apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous, or its use depends
upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours.
Requisites of the Aqueduct Easement:
Article 647 1. Indemnity must be paid to the servient owner and all those
One who for the purpose of irrigating or improving his estate, has to construct a stop affected by the seepage/fall of water
lock or sluice gate in the bed of the stream from which the water is to be taken, may 2. There should be proof that:
demand that the owners of the banks permit its construction, after payment of
a. The dominant owner can dispose of the water
damages, including those caused by the new easement to such owners and to the other
irrigators. b. That the water is sufficient for the intended use
c. That the course is the most convenient and least
Article 648 onerous
The establishment, extent, form and conditions of the servitudes of waters, to 3. Easement should not be imposed over buildings, gardens, yards, or
which this section refers, shall be governed by the special laws relating thereto insofar dependencies already established
as no provision therefor is made in this Code. a. IF the servitude is for private interest

Rights and Obligations

1. Naturally flowing water - Dominant Owner
2. Natural drainage of buildings o To service and clear the aqueduct and to provide for the
3. Easement on riparian banks for navigation, floatage, fishing, materials necessary for its maintenance
salvage - Servient Owner
4. Easement of a dam o To enclose/fence and build over aqueduct, provided that
5. Easement for drawing water / for watering animals it is not damaged and that maintenance and cleaning
6. Easement of aqueduct are not prevented
7. Easement for the construction of a stop lock or sluice gate
Easement for a Stop Lock/Sluice Gate
Easements of Naturally flowing water
- This is for the construction of sluice buildings for irrigation
- Lower estates are obliged to receive waters which naturally and
- The following requirements and conditions must also be met for
without intervention of man descend from higher estates
the construction and maintenance of the works and facilities
- The estate on the higher ground must not do anything that will needed for the beneficial use of the waters28:
increase the burdens on the lower estate o Payment of indemnity

24
As amended by Article 50, PD 1067 (Water Code of the Philippines) 27
As amended by Article 38, 39, PD 1067
25
As amended by Article 51, PD 1067 28
As amended by Article 25, PD 1067
26
Solis v. Pujeda
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 56 85

o The person is the owner, lessee, mortgagee, or one
having a real right over the land upon which he
proposes to use water
o The proposed easement is the most convenient and the
least onerous to the servient estate.
CASES ON EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATER
Javellana v IAC, Marsal & Co (1989)
An easement of water -right of way is
constituted when a canal has long been in
existence and it serves the public.
The servient estate cannot impair the use of the
easement.
Marsal bought a parcel of land with a canal cutting
through the land and leading to an Elementary School
from the river. This canal has been there ever since and it
serves as both ingress and egress for the Elementary
FACTS: School and the residents within the vicinity. Claiming that
the residents threw trash into the canal, Marsal closed it
by building a dike, so the Mayor and the residents sought
to demolish it. This is a suit for damages and permanent
injunction against the Mayor and the residents.
Is there an easement?
ISSUE:
May Marsal & Co build the dike?
YES, THEREFORE MARSAL MAY NOT BUILD THE DIKE.
Marsal cannot unilaterally terminate the easement. It has
been there even before it acquired the property and has
been there for at least 15 years. It cannot impair the use of
RATIO: the easement without providing for an alternate
easement that is no less convenient. Before the closure,
there have never been flooding. Now, there is. The real
cause of building the dike is to stem the residents
saltmaking which competes with Marsals business.
Tanedo v Bernad (1988)
The alienation of the dominant and servient
estates by the owner to different persons is not
a ground to extinguish such easement.
The existence of an apparent sign is the title
for an easement to continue if the property is
divided, unless a contrary stipulation is
provided or the sign is removed.
Cardenas owned 2 lots: A and B. A is smaller and had an
apartment bldg., while B is larger and had a 4-door
apartment, a bodega and a septic tank. Cardenas sold A to
Taedo with a right of first refusal over B. Cardenas
breached this agreement and sold B to Sps Sim. Taedo
FACTS:
offered to redeem B from Sps Sim, but the SOBs refused
and even cut off the drainage pipe of A to the septic tank
in B. (Paano kaya sila tumatae habang pending yung
case?). This is Taedos suit seeking legal redemption and
damages.
Was the easement extinguished when the owner alienated
ISSUES: the dominant and the servient estates to different
owners?
NO. There is no stipulation in the deed of sale abolishing
the easement. Neither did Cardenas stop Taedos use of
RATIO:
the septic tank after the sale. Sps Sim therefore cannot
impair the servitude.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Easement of Right of Way
Easement for a Stop Lock/Sluice Gate
Ongsiako v Ongsiako (1957)
An easement of drainage does not depend upon
acts of man, but on rainwater. It is therefore
continuous and subject to extinction by non -
use.
Caridad sued her sister Emilia to (1) revoke a donation, (2)
demolish the dike that interferes with her easement of
FACTS: drainage and (3) to annul her allegedly fraudulent
reduction in shares. Emilia simply claims that the suit has
prescribed.
ISSUE: Did the easement of drainage prescribe?
YES. The action has prescribed. It was not prosecuted for
RATIO: more than 13 years. An easement is extinguished by non-
use for 10 years.
Article 649
The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any
immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and
without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way
through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be
continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent
passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount
of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the
estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient
estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the
damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the
proprietor's own acts.
Article 650
The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to
the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
Article 651
The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for the
needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from time to time.
Article 652
Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is surrounded by
other estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a
right of way without indemnity.
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the
establishment of the right of way.
Article 653
In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the grantor that becomes
isolated, he may demand a right of way after paying an indemnity. However, the
donor shall not be liable for indemnity.
Article 654
If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the owner of
the dominant estate. A proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said
owner to the proprietor of the servient estate.
Article 655
If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be necessary because
its owner has joined it to another abutting on a public road, the owner of the servient
estate may demand that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have
received by way of indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in
payment of rent for the use of the easement.
The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving access to the
isolated estate.
In both cases, the public highway must substantially meet the needs of the
dominant estate in order that the easement may be extinguished.
Article 656
If it be indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or
beautification of a building, to carry materials through the estate of another, or to
raise therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of such
estate shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving payment of the proper
indemnity for the damage caused him.
57 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Easement of Right of Way
When can the easement be demanded?

Article 657 (par. 1) Maglasang v Dadole (2000)

Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock known as animal path, Maglasang sought to cancel the inscription of a
animal trail or any other, and those for watering places, resting places and animal permanent right of way on his TCT in favor of Pabroa.
folds, shall be governed by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the Pabroa opposed, claiming that it was the only outlet to
absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place. the national highway. Long story short: TC denied, the
Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the animal path shall not exceed in any decision became final, but Maglasang built a hollow block
case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail that of 37 meters and 50 FACTS:
fence anyway, so Pabroa sought a motion for execution of
centimeters. the decision, which TC granted after ordering an ocular
inspection. Maglasang claims that the new order modified
Requisites of Right of Way
the previous final judgment, therefore the Judge
1. Property must be surrounded by estates of other owners, without
committed grave abuse of discretion (GAD).
access to a public road
ISSUE: Did the new order modify the final judgment?
2. Indemnity must be paid first to servient owners
NO. There is no GAD because the right of way was
3. The easement must be established at a point least prejudicial to the
established in the previous case. The order to conduct the
servient estate
R A T I O : ocular inspection and to demolish the structures did not
4. That the isolation must not be due to acts of the dominant estate
modify the final judgment; the new orders merely
implemented the final judgment.
Is there Indemnity if:
Chan v CA, Philippine Rabbit Business Lines (1997)
VENDOR, EXCHANGER, DONOR
Requisites of an Easement of Right of Way:
CO-OWNER
(1) The estate is surrounded by other
THE SERVIENT No Yes immovables and is without adequate
ESTATE IS OWNED BY: outlet to a public highway
THE DOMINANT Yes No (2) Proper indemnity is paid
ESTATE IS OWNED BY: (3) The isolation is not due to the
proprietors own acts
PERMANENT ROAD TEMPORARY WAY (4) The right of way claimed is at the point
INDEMNITY Damages Damages least prejudicial to the servient estate
INCLUDES: and, insofar as consistent with this rule,
Value of the Land
where the distance from the dominant
NECESSARY REPAIRS To be shouldered by To be shouldered by estate to the public HW may be shortest.
the dominant owner the servient owner
SHARE IN TAXES Proportional part of None Chan occupied a lot surrounded by stores @ NorthWest, a
the taxes based on family @South, and the Phil Rabbit terminal @NorthEast.
benefit Chan built a fence @South thereby making her only
FACTS:
ingress and egress thru Phil Rabbits lot. This is a suit for
an injunction by Chan against Phil Rabbit to stop the latter
Width from building a fence.
- Sufficient for the requirements of the dominant estate ISSUES: Does Chan have a right of way thru Phil Rabbits lot?
- This may be changed from time to time NO. Chan is not entitled to a right of way. She built a fence
at the southern boundary where there was another way to
Special cause of extinction RATIO:
the public road. She therefore caused her own isolation.
- Joining the dominant estate to another having exit at a public road Moreover, there was no valid tender of proper indemnity.
o Road must substantially meet the needs of the
dominant estate and must not require a change in the Sps. Cesar, Sta. Maria v CA, Sps. Spenio (1998)
roads character Sps Fajardo has a lot surrounded by the Jacinto lot @NW, a
- Opening of a new road giving access to the dominant estate fishpond @NE, the Cruz lot @SE, and the Sps Cesar lot
o Indemnity is returned without interest (the interest is @SW. The public road is @SW, directly beyond the Sps
regarded as rent) FACTS:
Cesar lot. This is a suit against Sps Cesar for the
Who can demand the easement? establishment of a right of way. Sps Cesar claims that a
- The owner of the dominant estate right of way will cause great damage to their property.
o Unless the physical isolation is due to the proprietors May a right of way be established thru Sps Cesar lot in
ISSUE:
own acts favor of Sps Fajardo?
YES. Sps Fajardo has 3 options:
- Also other persons who have a real right to possess or use the
(1) Traverse Cesar lot directly (20-25m)
property
(2) Traverse thru Cruz (circuitous)
When can the easement be demanded? (3) Traverse thru Jacinto (50 yards)
1. When there is absolutely no access to a public highway R A T I O : In all 3 instances, there would be no substantial damage
2. When, even if there is one, it is difficult, or dangerous to use, or is that will result (contrary to Sps Cesars lying). Therefore,
grossly insufficient applying the 4th requisite, a right of way may be
constituted thru the Cesar property.
Notes:
- Needs must be real, not fictitious. Mere convenience is not enough
basis for the creation of the easement
- Generally, right of way is only acquired through a title (since it is
discontinuous)
o If there is a sign or a contrary use by the dominant
owner, then the servitude may be acquired through
prescription
- Servient owner may change the site of the way

CASES ON EASEMENTS OF RIGHT OF WAY

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 58 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Easement of Party Wall
Rebuttal of Presumption

Sps. De la Cruz v Ramiscal (2005)
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is
not enough to serve as basis for the easement
of a right of way
Respondent, after selling its property and conducting a
survey of its sold land, found out that Petitioners were
using a strip of its land as a pathway towards the public
highway. Respondent asked the Petitioners to destroy
constructions on such strip of land, alleging that
FACTS: Petitioners already has an alley on its own land that
sufficiently gives him access to the public road. Petitioners
assert that they have been given authority by
Respondents a long time ago through his foreman and
that Respondents are already barred by laches in asserting
their rights over the said strip of land.
WON the Sps. De La Cruz has a right of way over
ISSUES:
Ramiscals property
NO. In this case, not all the requisites of a right of way are
present. 1st, there is proof that Petitioners had an alley
that already connected its property to the public highway.
2nd, no proof that it had paid indemnity for the use of the
RATIO: said easement. 3rd, granted that the alley was already
blocked, this was blockage was caused by Petitioner
himself. Also, laches cannot be appreciated in this case, as
Ramiscal immediately took action upon finding out about
the said anomaly.
If the owner of a building, supported by a party wall desires to demolish the building, he
may also renounce his part-ownership of the wall, but the cost of all repairs and work
necessary to prevent any damage which the demolition may cause to the party wall, on this
occasion only, shall be borne by him.
Article 664
Every owner may increase the height of the party wall, doing at his own expense and
paying for any damage which may be caused by the work, even though such damage be
temporary.
The expenses of maintaining the wall in the part newly raised or deepened at its
foundation shall also be paid for by him; and, in addition, the indemnity for the increased
expenses which may be necessary for the preservation of the party wall by reason of the
greater height or depth which has been given it.
If the party wall cannot bear the increased height, the owner desiring to raise it shall be
obliged to reconstruct it at his own expense and, if for this purpose it be necessary to make
it thicker, he shall give the space required from his own land.
Article 665
The other owners who have not contributed in giving increased height, depth or thickness
to the wall may, nevertheless, acquire the right of part-ownership therein, by paying
proportionally the value of the work at the time of the acquisition and of the land used for
its increased thickness.
Article 666
Every part-owner of a party wall may use it in proportion to the right he may have in the
co-ownership, without interfering with the common and respective uses by the other co-
owners.

Article 658
The easement of party wall shall be governed by the provisions of this Title, by the local
ordinances and customs insofar as they do not conflict with the same, and by the rules of
co-ownership.

Article 659
The existence of an easement of party wall is presumed, unless there is a title, or exterior
Examples of a Party Wall
sign, or proof to the contrary: Nature of a Party Wall
(1) In dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the point of common elevation; - Easements with a bit of co-ownership
(2) In dividing walls of gardens or yards situated in cities, towns, or in rural communities;
(3) In fences, walls and live hedges dividing rural lands. - Erected on the boundary/dividing line, occupying a portion of both
estates
Article 660 - Parties are presumed to be part owners of the party wall (50-50)
It is understood that there is an exterior sign, contrary to the easement of party wall:
(1) Whenever in the dividing wall of buildings there is a window or opening; PARTY WALL CO-OWNERSHIP
(2) Whenever the dividing wall is, on one side, straight and plumb on all its facement,
and on the other, it has similar conditions on the upper part, but the lower part slants SHARE Actual Share Ideal Share
or projects outward; ENJOYMENT Each owner as to Each may use the entire
(3) Whenever the entire wall is built within the boundaries of one of the estates; the half property
(4) Whenever the dividing wall bears the burden of the binding beams, floors and roof
frame of one of the buildings, but not those of the others;
RENUNCIATION Renunciation must Renunciation may be
(5) Whenever the dividing wall between courtyards, gardens, and tenements is be total partial
constructed in such a way that the coping sheds the water upon only one of the BENEFIT Presumed equal Presumed equal
estates;
COSTS AND EXPENSES Based on Based on proportion of
(6) Whenever the dividing wall, being built of masonry, has stepping stones, which at
certain intervals project from the surface on one side only, but not on the other;
proportion of benefit
(7) Whenever lands inclosed by fences or live hedges adjoin others which are not benefit
inclosed. CONSENT TO OPEN A Needed from the No consent necessary
In all these cases, the ownership of the walls, fences or hedges shall be deemed to belong WINDOW/APERTURE other owner
exclusively to the owner of the property or tenement which has in its favor the presumption
based on any one of these signs
Presumption of existence
Article 661
Ditches or drains opened between two estates are also presumed as common to both, if
- In adjoining walls of buildings, up to common elevation
there is no title or sign showing the contrary. - In dividing walls of gardens and yards (urban)
There is a sign contrary to the part-ownership whenever the earth or dirt removed to open - In dividing fences, walls, and live hedges (rural)
the ditch or to clean it is only on one side thereof, in which case the ownership of the ditch - In ditches or drains between tenements
shall belong exclusively to the owner of the land having this exterior sign in its favor.

Article 662
The cost of repairs and construction of party walls and the maintenance of fences, live
hedges, ditches, and drains owned in common, shall be borne by all the owners of the lands
or tenements having the party wall in their favor, in proportion to the right of each.
Nevertheless, any owner may exempt himself from contributing to this charge by
renouncing his part-ownership, except when the party wall supports a building belonging
to him.

Article 663
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 59 85

Rebuttal of Presumption
- By title
- By contrary proof
- By signs contrary to the existence of the servitude
o Presence of a window/opening
o One side is straight and plumb and on the other has
slants or projections
o Entire wall is built within the boundaries of one of the
estates
o Wall bears the burden of the binding beams, floors and
roof frame of one of the buildings
o Presence of stepping stones on only one side
o Wall is part of an enclosure
(3)
(2)
(1)
(4)
(5)
(7) Examples of
(6)
Exterior Signs
Rights of the Part owners
- Generally, part-owners may use the wall in proportion to their
respective interests, provided that:
o The right to use by the other party is not interfered with
o Consent is needed if a party wants to open a window
o The condition of the building is determined by experts
- To increase the height of the wall
o He does this at his expense, including the thickening of
the wall on his land
o He shall indemnify the other party for any damages
- To acquire a half-interest in any increase in height or thickness of
the wall, paying a proportionate share in the cost of the work and
the value of the land covered
o Note that the value of the land must be appraised at the
time of acquisition
Obligations of each Part owner
- To contribute proportionately to the repair and maintenance of the
party wall
o UNLESS he renounces his part-ownership
This includes the renunciation of the share in
the wall + the land
He cannot renounce his part if his building is
being supported by the party wall
- If he raises the height of the wall, he must:
o Bear the cost of maintenance of the additions
o Bear the cost of construction, if the wall cannot support
the additional height
o Give additional land, if necessary to thicken the wall
o Pay for damages, if necessary, even if temporary
o Bear the increased expenses for preservation
Notes:
- If exterior signs contradict, the courts will decide
- Title v. Exterior Signs = Title will prevail
o Signs only give inference/indicia of ownership
- Enjoyment of right must not be to the detriment of the other party
- If a party wants to demolish his building being supported by the
party wall, he may still renounce his part-ownership
o He shall bear the costs of all repairs and works
necessary to prevent any damage
29
Cortez v. Yu-Tibo (1903)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Easement of Light and View
Concept
Article 667
No part-owner may, without the consent of the others, open through the party wall any
window or aperture of any kind.
Article 668
The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light and view shall be
counted:
(1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a party wall; or
(2) From the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of the adjoining land or
tenement, if the window is through a wall on the dominant estate.
Article 669
When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the owner of a wall which is not party
wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land belonging to another, can make in it openings to
admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or immediately under the ceiling, and of the
size of thirty centimeters square, and, in every case, with an iron grating imbedded in the
wall and with a wire screen.
Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in which the
openings are made can close them should he acquire part-ownership thereof, if there be
no stipulation to the contrary.
He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by raising a wall
thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an easement of light has been
acquired.
Article 670
No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which afford a direct view
upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance
of two meters between the wall in which they are made and such contiguous property.
Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such conterminous property be had,
unless there be a distance of sixty centimeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
Article 671
The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be measured in cases of direct views
from the outer line of the wall when the openings do not project, from the outer line of the
latter when they do, and in cases of oblique view from the dividing line between the two
properties.
Article 672
The provisions of Article 670 are not applicable to buildings separated by a public way or
alley, which is not less than three meters wide, subject to special regulations and local
ordinances
Article 673
Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have direct views, balconies or
belvederes overlooking an adjoining property, the owner of the servient estate cannot
build thereon at less than a distance of three meters to be measured in the manner
provided in Article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less than those prescribed in
Article 670 is VOID.
Easement of Light (jus luminum)
- Right to make openings to receive light from anothers tenement
(Does not include the right to view)
Easement of View (servidumbre prospectus)
- Right to open windows to enjoy the view and to bar the servient
owner from blocking the view
Concept
- Positive Easements: Acquired by asking the servient owner to do
something or to allow the dominant owner to do something on his
property
o E.g.: Opening of a window in a party wall
o Note: There seems to be no positive easements in Light
and View
- Negative Easements: Acquired by demanding the servient owner
from doing something that would block the dominant owners light
or view, which he would be undoubtedly be entitled to do were it
not for the existent of the easement29
o E.g. Person A prohibits B (through a notarized demand)
from blocking his view (B is not bound to follow this
demand, as there is no easement yet), but because of
prescription (through the inaction of B), A acquires an
easement of light/view.
60 85

Rules and Restrictions on Openings
Restrictions as to openings in a party wall
- Such openings cannot be made without the consent of the other
owner
Restrictions on openings in ones own wall openings for light when
contiguous (less than 2 meters) to anothers tenement
- Details:
o Size: Max 1 foot square / 30 cm each side
o Location: Openings must be at the height of the joists,
near the ceilings
o Construction: They must be provided with iron grilles
and wire netting
- Rights of the adjoining/abutting owner:
o To close the openings, if the wall becomes a party wall
o To block the light by building/erecting his own wall,
unless a servitude is acquired
o To ask for the reduction of the opening to the proper
size
Restrictions as to Direct Views
- There is a direct view when the prolongation of its axis will meet
the next tenement
- No windows, balconies, etc., may be made in walls affording direct
view UNLESS a distance of 2 meters is left between wall and
boundary
Restrictions as to Oblique Views
- Walls may not be had at less than 60cm from the boundary line to
the nearest edge of the window/balcony
Notes:
- Stipulations permitting lesser distances are VOID
- The rules are not applicable to buildings separated by public ways
or alleys at least 3 meters wide
How acquired
- By title
- By prescription
o Counting from formal prohibition or from the time of
opening of the window, if it is through a party wall
o Mere non-observance of the distance requirements
does not give rise to prescription
Rights when the easement is acquired
- Other owner cannot build within 3 meters from the boundary
Notes:
- Opening of a window/balcony in your own wall = Negative
Easement
- Opening of a window in a party wall = Positive Easement
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Drainage of Buildings
Concept
Article 674
The owner of a building shall be obliged to construct its roof or covering in such manner
that the rain water shall fall on his own land or on a street or public place, and not on the
land of his neighbor, even though the adjacent land may belong to two or more persons, one
of whom is the owner of the roof. Even if it should fall on his own land, the owner shall be
obliged to collect the water in such a way as not to cause damage to the adjacent land or
tenement.
Article 675
The owner of a tenement or a piece of land, subject to the easement of receiving water
falling from roofs, may build in such manner as to receive the water upon his own roof or
give it another outlet in accordance with local ordinances or customs, and in such a way as
not to cause any nuisance or damage whatever to the dominant estate.
Article 676
Whenever the yard or court of a house is surrounded by other houses, and it is not possible
to give an outlet through the house itself to the rain water collected thereon, the
establishment of an easement of drainage can be demanded, giving an outlet to the water
at the point of the contiguous lands or tenements where its egress may be easiest, and
establishing a conduit for the drainage in such manner as to cause the least damage to the
servient estate, after payment of the property indemnity.
General Rules and Restrictions
- The owner or a building must construct his roof/covering in a
manner that rain water falls on his own land, a street or a public
place, and not on the land of a neighbor
- The disposal of the said water must not cause damage to the
adjoining estate
Compulsory easement
- When available?
o A house, yard or court is enclosed by other estates; and
o It is impossible to give outlet to the rain water through
the house itself
- Conditions of the easement:
o The outlet must be established in the least prejudicial
manner
o Indemnity must be paid
- Option of the servient owner:
o He may allow the flow of water on his own estate and
drain the same but must be done without damage to the
dominant owners estate
Article 677
No constructions can be built or plantings made near fortified places or fortresses
without compliance with the conditions required in special laws, ordinances, and regulations
relating thereto.
Article 678
No person shall build any aqueduct, well, sewer, furnace, forge, chimney, stable,
depository of corrosive substances, machinery, or factory which by reason of its nature
or products is dangerous or noxious, without observing the distances prescribed by the
regulations and customs of the place, and without making the necessary protective works,
subject, in regard to the manner thereof, to the conditions prescribed by such regulations.
These prohibitions cannot be altered or renounced by stipulation on the part of the
adjoining proprietors.
In the absence of regulations, such precautions shall be taken as may be considered
necessary, in order to avoid any damage to the neighboring lands or tenements.
Concept
- For public security and safety
- Rules that govern (in order):
o Special laws and Ordinances
o Customs of the place
o Precautions considered necessary
- No waiver or alteration by stipulation is allowed
- Violators may be punished for Quasi-Delict under Art. 2191
61 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || B. Legal Easements || Planting of trees
Remedies for violation

Concept:
Article 679 - Public safety = the reason behind the prohibition on stipulations
No trees shall be planted near a tenement or piece of land belonging to another except allowing excavations that cause danger
at the distance authorized by the ordinances or customs of the place, and, in the absence - The notice requirement can be dispensed with if the owner of the
thereof, at a distance of at least two meters from the dividing line of the estates if tall building has actual knowledge of the excavation
trees are planted and at a distance of at least fifty centimeters if shrubs or small trees are o The notice requirement here is only to enable the
planted. adjoining owners to take precautions
Every landowner shall have the right to demand that trees hereafter planted at a o But such notice shall not preclude a recovery for
shorter distance from his land or tenement be uprooted.
damages, in case the excavator causes damage to the
The provisions of this article also apply to trees which have grown spontaneously. adjoining property/building
Article 680 Remedies for violation
If the branches of any tree should extend over a neighboring estate, tenement, garden 1. Action for damages
or yard, the owner of the latter shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar 2. Injunction
as they may spread over his property, and, if it be the roots of a neighboring tree which
should penetrate into the land of another, the latter may cut them off himself within his
property.
In this scenario, the
Article 681 tunnel owns the land
Fruits naturally falling upon adjacent land belong to the owner of said land. underneath that of
the house.
Concept:
- Rules governing the distances (in order):
o Local Ordinances The easement here is
o Customs of the place the protection
o Civil Code against constructions
Tall Trees: 2 meters by the tunnel owner
Small Trees/Shrubs: 50 centimeters from weakening the
These are measured from the dividing line up to the subjacent support of
Example of
center of the tree the house
Subjacent Support
- If the parts of the tree shall extend to the neighboring estate, what
are the rights of the neighboring estates owner?
o May order to cut the branches
o May cut the roots on his own

In this scenario, the

land on the right is
Article 682
owned by another
Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which prohibits the
person.
proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive
odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and other causes.
The easement here is
Article 683
the protection
Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and regulations, factories and shops
against constructions
may be maintained provided the least possible annoyance is caused to the
neighborhood.
by the adjacent owner
from weakening the
Example of
Concept: lateral support of the
Lateral Support
- This easement is more of a statutory limitation on the exercise of house
ones rights over his property

Article 684
No proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent
land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support.

Article 685
Any stipulation or testamentary provision allowing excavations that cause danger
to an adjacent land or building shall be VOID.

Article 686
The legal easement of lateral and subjacent support is not only for buildings
standing at the time the excavations are made but also for constructions that may be
erected.

Article 687
Any proprietor intending to make any excavation contemplated in the three
preceding articles shall notify all owners of adjacent lands.

LATERAL SUPPORT SUBJACENT SUPPORT

Both the land being supported and When the supported land is above
the supporting land are on the the supporting land
same plane

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 62 85
 IX. Easements or Servitudes || C. Voluntary Easements ||
Where the owner bounds himself to pay for the maintenance OR do some service

Article 688 - Made by the owners in the exercise of their right of ownership
Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish thereon the easements o Provide that they are not contrary to law, public order,
which he may deem suitable, and in the manner and form which he may deem best, etc.
provided he does not contravene the laws, public policy or public order. - An act of alteration, therefore rules on co-ownership on acts of
alteration shall govern
Article 689
The owner of a tenement or piece of land, the usufruct of which belongs to another,
may impose thereon, without the consent of the usufructuary, any servitudes which
will not injure the right of usufruct. - The owner possessing capacity to encumber property may
constitute voluntary servitudes
Article 690
o May also be exercised by an agent or anyone having
Whenever the naked ownership of a tenement or piece of land belongs to one person
and the beneficial ownership to another, no perpetual voluntary easement may be
authority FOR THE BENEFIT of the owner
established thereon without the consent of both owners. - If there are various owners, all must consent
o Consent need not be given simultaneously
Article 691 o Consent given is irrevocable
In order to impose an easement on an undivided tenement, or piece of land, the
consent of all the co-owners shall be required.
The consent given by some only, must be held in abeyance until the last one of all the
co-owners shall have expressed his conformity. Predial servitudes (For the benefit of the estate)
But the consent given by one of the co-owners separately from the others shall bind - For the owner of the dominant estate
the grantor and his successors not to prevent the exercise of the right granted.
- For any other person having any juridical relation with the
Article 692 dominant estate, if the owner ratifies it
The title and, in a proper case, the possession of an easement acquired by Personal servitudes (For the benefit of the owner)
prescription shall determine the rights of the dominant estate and the obligations of
the servient estate. In default thereof, the easement shall be governed by such - For anyone capacitated to accept
provisions of this Title as are applicable thereto. - These rights do not transfer to the successors-in-interest of the
dominant owner30
Article 693
If the owner of the servient estate should have bound himself, upon the
establishment of the easement, to bear the cost of the work required for the use and
preservation thereof, he may free himself from this obligation by renouncing his These are determined by:
property to the owner of the dominant estate.
- Title (contract, will, etc.)
- Civil Code provisions are suppletory

Where the owner bounds himself to pay for the maintenance OR do some
service
- He may abandon his tenement and relieve himself of his obligation

30
Jabonete v. Monteverde (1966)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 63 85
 X. Nuisance || A. Definition || Concept of Nuisance
Nature of Liability

X. Nuisance
1. According to relief
a. Actionable
Article 694
b. Non-Actionable
2. According to manner of relief
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which: a. Abatable by criminal and civil actions
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or b. Abatable only by civil actions
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or c. Abatable judicially
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or d. Abatable extrajudicially
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, 3. According to the Civil Code
or any body of water; or a. Public (Common)
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property
b. Private
Criterion of Annoyance
- The annoyance are to be judged by the effect they are calculated to
Basis of Concept produce upon ordinary people under normal circumstances
- One of the most serious hindrances to the enjoyment of life and - Must be an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary
property comfort, physically, of human existence
- It is the arbitrary/abusive use of property OR wanton disregard of Attractive Nuisance Doctrine31
commonly accepted standards by society
- Attractive Nuisance = A dangerous instrumentality or appliance
- which is likely to attract children at play
Types of Nuisance - One who maintains on his estate/premises an attractive nuisance
- Harm caused without exercising due care to prevent children from playing
- Human activity which causes harm therewith or resorting thereto is liable to a child of tender years
who is injured thereby, even I the child is technically a trespasser in
- Both the factual situation and the legal liability
the premises
- Note: A swimming pool or water tank is not an attractive nuisance,
NUISANCE NEGLIGENCE
as it resembles a natural body of water. Lurking in their waters is
Breach of Duty always the danger of drowning. Against this danger children are
PENALIZED Injury caused Lack of proper care early instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the
BECAUSE: danger.32

CAUSE OF Continuing/Recurring Harm resulting from one act

Article 696
ACTION: acts that cause which created an
Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a
discomfort or annoyance unreasonable risk of injury nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in
REMEDY: Abatement Damages the same manner as the one who created it.

Article 697
The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to
NUISANCE TRESPASS recover damages for its past existence.
No necessary entry to anothers Entry into anothers property
property Article 698
Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private.
Injury is consequential Injury is direct and immediate

Who are liable?

Art. 695
- G.R.: He who creates/maintains the nuisance is liable
Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the He who is aware of the nuisance in his property and fails to
annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is abate it is liable
one that is not included in the foregoing definition - E: If the person cannot physically abate the nuisance without
legal action against another person
Nature of Liability
NUISANCE PER SE NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS - Solidary liability for all persons who join or participate in the
Nuisance at all times, under any Nuisance by reason of the creation/maintenance of the nuisance
circumstance circumstances - If 2 or more persons act independently, without any community of
Need to produce evidence that it No summary abatement interest, concert of action or common design, each is liable only so
harms you far as his acts contribute to the injury.

Note:
- The action for abatement and damages need not be filed at the
same time; One can file for abatement first, then damages later

31
Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA (1999) 32
Hidalgo v. Balandan (1952)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 64 85
 X. Nuisance || B. Classification of Nuisance and Remedy || Public Nuisance
Requisite of the Right of an Individual to Abate Public Nuisance

Concept of a Public Nuisance

Article 699 - A nuisance that affects a neighbourhood or community
The remedies against a public nuisance are: - It does not need to affect the whole community, so long as it
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or affects a considerable number of people
(2) A civil action; or
Remedies against a Public Nuisance
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
1. Criminal Prosecution
Article 700 2. Civil action (Abatement, damages, injunction)
The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a 3. Extra-judicial abatement
public nuisance are availed of.
Who may file an action against a public nuisance?
Article 701 - City/Municipal Mayor
If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such - A private person ONLY IF the nuisance is SPECIALLY INJURIOUS to
action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. him
Article 702 Responsibility of District Health Officer
The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without - To take care that the remedies are availed of
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance. - To determine whether or not abatement without judicial
Article 703
proceedings is the best remedy
A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is specially - To approve and execute abatement requests from private persons
injurious to himself. Requisite of the Right of an Individual to Abate Public Nuisance
Article 704
1. Right must be exercised only in cases or urgent/extreme necessity
Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him
and if such nuisance is specially injurious to him
by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, o The summary abatement should be resorted to within a
without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is reasonable time after knowledge of the nuisance
necessary: 2. Demand to abate the nuisance must be made on the owner of the
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to property originating the nuisance
abate the nuisance; o Such demand must be rejected
(2) That such demand has been rejected; 3. Notice of his intentions to abate must be given to the one causing
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and the nuisance within a reasonable time
executed with the assistance of the local police; and
4. Abatement must be approved by the District Health Officer
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.
5. The right must always be exercised with the assistance of the local
police
6. The means employed must be reasonable, without committing a
breach of the peace and any unnecessary injury
o Property must not be destroyed, unless it is absolutely
necessary to do so

Notes:
- The exercise of the remedy must be confined to doing what is
necessary to abate the nuisance
- No compensation is to be given to the owner of the property
creating the nuisance, as the abatement falls under the Police
Power of the State.
- Special ordinances or laws may grant the power to determine
nuisance to other public officials
- Purpose of Notice:
o In order to avoid breach of peace
o Due Process: Giving chance to abate the nuisance
himself
- Notice may be dispensed with if the danger is imminent

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 65 85
 X. Nuisance || B. Classification of Nuisance and Remedy || Private Nuisance
Defenses

CASES ON NUISANCE
Article 705 Iloilo Cold Storage v Mun. Council of Iloilo (1913)
The remedies against a private nuisance are: A municipal body has the power t o declare and
(1) A civil action; or abate nuisances.
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
BUT it has no power to find as fact that a
Article 706
particular thing is a nuisance.
Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary,
The determination of whether or not a nuisance
by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach
of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the exists is a judicial function, because to declare
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be something a nuisance is to deprive its use.
followed.
ICSs cold storage plant emitted an obscene amount of
Remedies against a Private Nuisance smoke so the municipal council issued a resolution
1. Civil action (Abatement, damages, injunction) requiring it to elevate its smokestacks or face closure. This
2. Extra-judicial abatement FACTS: is a suit to enjoin the Municipal Council. ICS claims that the
o Destruction of the thing must not exceed P 3,000 intervention of the courts is necessary to find property a
nuisance.

ISSUES: May a municipal council to declare and abate nuisances?

Article 707 YES. Even if the ICS business is lawful, it can still be a
A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be RATIO: nuisance insofar as it substantially affects the comfort
liable for damages: and enjoyment of others.
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real
nuisance. Velasco v Meralco (1971)
(Test of whether or not a particular noise is a
Article 1143
nuisance)
The following rights, among others specified elsewhere in this Code, are not
extinguished by prescription:
(1) To demand a right of way, regulated in Article 649; Whether the rights of property, of health, or of
(2) To bring an action to abate a public or private nuisance. comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise
in question that the sufferer is subjected to loss
When a private person may be liable for injury? which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed
1. There is an extrajudicial abatement by simply living there.
2. Abatement is with injury
3. The property does not produce nuisance Velasco bought 3 lots and sold 2 to Meralco. He lived on
the lot he didnt sell, while Meralco built a substation
Defenses which produced a lot of noise. Velasco sued for damages,
FACTS:
- Public necessity of the property arguing that it disturbed his concentration, sleep, impaired
- Non-existence of the nuisance his health and that it sounded like a Nazi torture
- Prescription and Estoppel by laches (for the criminal/civil action) chamber and a volcano ready to explode.
o Prescription may run after the nuisance is abated or ISSUES: Is the Meralco substation a nuisance?
after damage occurred YES. The court ruled that Velasco is clearly OA (over-
o Estoppel by laches may also be a basis for mitigation of acting). So the Court relied on the scientific bases
liability provided. It found that the normal sound level of a
RATIO: residential lot is at 40 dB, but the noise generated by the
substation ranged from 46-80 dB. This was much higher
than normal so it awarded P20k as damages and P5k as
attys fees.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 66 85
 XI. Registry of Property || Concept and Definitions || Defenses against abatement
Public Nature defined

XI. Registry of Property

Article 708 Who are third persons?
The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and
- Those who did not participate, in any way, in the act, contract, or
contracts relating to the ownership and other rights over immovable property.
deed registered
Article 709 o But a person who has actual knowledge of such may be
The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are bound even without registration 33
not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice
Effects of Registration
third persons.
- Registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world
Article 710 - Registration does not cure neither does it validate the effect the
The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who have a known poorly crafted contract
interest in ascertaining the status of the immovables or real rights annotated or - Registration does not vest title; Not a mode of acquiring ownership;
inscribed therein.
It only evidences a title
Article 711 Effect of lack of registration
For determining what titles are subject to inscription or annotation, as well as the
- Contracts will not bind third persons with regard the real property;
form, effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and annotations, the manner of
keeping the books in the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said
Concept of privity of contracts
books, the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and other Public Nature defined
special laws shall govern.
- Availability of the records to any person as long as it is clear that
the purpose of the examination is NOT unlawful or arises from
sheer, idle curiosity34

Definition of Register
- Act of recording/annotating
1. Registration under the Land Registration Act (Torrens System)
- The book of registry
2. Registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law
- The office/official concerned
Who administers the registry?
- Register of Deeds
1. Registration under Sec. 194 of the Revised Administrative Code as
Power of the Register of Deeds amended by Act 3344 (1926)
- Primarily governs all the acts over the records 2. PD 1529 Property Registration Decree under the Torrens System
- Discretion to exercise as to the manner of 3rd persons inspecting (1978)
records o Lands registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law not
registered with the Torrens system became unregistered
Purpose of Registration and Publicity lands
- To give true notice of the true status of real property and real o Lands registered under the Torrens system got eligible
rights thereto for registration under PD 1529
- To record acts or contracts with regard to ownership and other real o Act. 3344 is still a valid law, but all instruments dealing
rights with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered
- To prejudice third persons under Section 113 of this Decree.
- To prevent the commission of frauds
Purpose of the Torrens System
- Avoid possible conflicts of title in and to real estate
- Facilitate transactions with ease and convenience

33
Tuazon v. Reyes and Siochi (1926) 34
Subido v. Ozaeta (1949)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 67 85
 XII. Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership || A. Preliminary Provision || Modes of Acquiring Ownership
Animals

Notes:
XII. Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership
- The rules on Occupation are only applicable to corporeal personal
property.
o Lands are therefore subject to other rules provided in
Article 712
the Civil Code
Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.
o Intellectual Properties are governed by the next chapter
Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by
and Special laws
law, by donation, by estate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain
contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription. POSSESSION OCCUPATION
Generally does not confer Confers ownership
ownership
May be through actual or Only through actual means
Original Modes constructive means
Do not need a title to depend on Should be adverse, open, Intent to acquire is enough
1. Occupation continuous and notorious
2. Operation of Law
3. Creation or Work
4. Acquisitive Prescription
Article 714
Derivative Modes The ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation.
Those which arise from a pre-existing right/title
1. Succession - Regalian Doctrine = Ownership of state over abandoned lands
2. Donation
3. Tradition, as a consequence of certain contracts
a. Actual Delivery Article 560
b. Constructive Delivery Wild animals are possessed only while they are under one's control; domesticated
or tamed animals are considered domestic or tame if they retain the habit of
Requisites for delivery
returning to the premises of the possessor.
1. Intention to give and intention to acquire
2. Capacity to transmit by grantor and grantee to receive Article 715
3. Ultimate act of delivery The right to hunt and to fish is regulated by special laws.
Purpose of delivery Article 716
- Ownership is derived upon delivery The owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to pursue them to another's land,
- Non-payment of price is not a bar to transfer of ownership, unless indemnifying the possessor of the latter for the damage. If the owner has not
stipulated pursued the swarm, or ceases to do so within two consecutive days, the possessor
of the land may occupy or retain the same. The owner of domesticated animals
may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their occupation by
MODE TITLE another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him who has
Proximate cause of Remote cause of the transfer of caught and kept them.
acquiring/transferring ownership ownership
Article 717
True cause / process Justification for the process Pigeons and fish which from their respective breeding places pass to another
Directly produces a real right Serves merely to give an pertaining to a different owner shall belong to the latter, provided they have not
opportunity for the existence of a been enticed by some article of fraud.
real right
Article 718
A Personal right is created He who by chance discovers hidden treasure in another's property shall have the
right granted him in article 438 of this Code.

Article 719
Article 713 Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return it to its previous
possessor. If the latter is unknown, the finder shall immediately deposit it with the
Things appropriable by nature which are without an owner, such as animals that
mayor of the city or municipality where the finding has taken place.
are the object of hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandoned movables, are
acquired by occupation. The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks
in the way he deems best.
If the movable cannot be kept without deterioration, or without expenses which
considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at public auction eight days after
the publication.
Definition of Occupation Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner having
- Seizure or apprehension of corporeal personal property that has no appeared, the thing found, or its value, shall be awarded to the finder. The finder
owner, made with the intention to acquire it, in accordance with the and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to reimburse the expenses.
legal rules
Article 720
Essential requisites for Occupation If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to pay, as a reward to the
1. The property must be corporeal personal property, subject to finder, one-tenth of the sum or of the price of the thing found.
appropriation (res nullius)
2. There is a seizure or apprehension
3. There must be intent to appropriate
4. The requisites or condition of the law must be complied with

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 68 85
 XII. Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership || C. Intellectual Creation || Property subject to Occupation
Notes on Patents:

Animals
Kinds of Animals
Article 721
- Wild By intellectual creation, the following persons acquire ownership:
- Tamed or domesticated a. The author with regard to his literary, dramatic, historical, legal,
- Domestic or tame philosophical, scientific or other work;
b. The composer; as to his musical composition;
c. The painter, sculptor, or other artist, with respect to the product of his
Wild Animals thru Hunting and Fishing art;
- Requisites: d. The scientist or technologist or any other person with regard to his
1. Seizure in open season discovery or invention.
2. By means not prohibited Article 722
- Special laws enacted by Congress The author and the composer, mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding article,
o Illegal Fishing Penalties of 1974 (PD 534) shall have the ownership of their creations even before the publication of the
o Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of same. Once their works are published, their rights are governed by the Copyright
2001 (RA 9147) laws.
- The municipality has the power to enforce such ordinances The painter, sculptor or other artist shall have dominion over the product of his
art even before it is copyrighted.
The scientist or technologist has the ownership of his discovery or invention even
Tamed Animals
before it is patented.
- Article 716 talks about domesticated animals
- Generally, they belong to the tamer Article 723
o But they are susceptible to occupation unless claimed Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to
whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or
within 20 days
disseminated without the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court
- Special Rules: may authorize their publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest
o Pigeons and Fish of justice so requires.
G.R.: If they pass from their breeding place to another
belonging to a different owner, the latter owns Article 724
them Special laws govern copyright and patent.
E: Unless enticed by trickery, then the original Notes on Publications:
owner retains ownership
- Before publication
o Swarms of Bees o Author/composer has the right to first publication
G.R.: Acquirable by occupation if not claimed within 2 - After publication
consecutive days o Author/composer loses the exclusive right to control
Owner must pursue them but must indemnify the subsequent publication by others, unless the work is
finder placed under the protection of the Copyright Law
- Rule when employees write
Domestic Animals o Employees generally own the intellectual property they
create, unless such work is contemplated by the
- Ordinarily born and reared under mans control and is accustomed
contract of employment
to return
- Rule on personal letters
- Only acquired when abandoned
o For letters, the physical property is owned by the
Abandoned Personal Property receiver, but the intellectual property therein is still
- Abandoned property = intent to abandon is important owned by the sender
- Acquirable through prescription Notes on Patents:
Lost Personal Property - Governed by the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293)
- If the former possessor is known, it must be returned to him - To be patentable, the invention must be new
- If the former possessor is unknown, the following rules must be o But this does not mean that absolute novelty is required
applied: - Inventions that are contrary to public order, morals, public health,
1. Finder must deposit it with the mayor of the town where or welfare cannot be patented
the thing was found - Patents, when introduced as evidence, affords a prima facie
2. Mayor to advertise the finding for 2 consecutive weeks, presumption that the patentee is the original and first inventor
in a manner he deems best
a. If the thing is deteriorable, it shall be sold at
an auction 8 days after publication
b. If not deteriorable, must be preserved
3. Owner must claim the property before the end of the
period of notice and award 1/10 of the value/price of the
thing + costs
a. If he does not claim, property will be given to
the finder
- Failure to follow the said procedure is tantamount to theft
Hidden Treasure
- Rules on Hidden Treasure shall govern

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 69 85
 XIII. Donation || A. Nature of Donation || Concept of Donations
Note (Authors understanding)

General Types of Donations

XIII. Donation DEFINITION GOVERNING LAWS
SIMPLE Donations that are made Title on Donations
Article 725 DONATIONS out of pure liberality Civil Code (suppletory)
Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing REMUNERATORY Donations made in favor Title on Donations
or right in favor of another, who accepts it. DONATIONS of services rendered to Laws on Contracts (for
the donor, but not the onerous portion)
constituting recoverable
debts
- A contract made out of liberality by the donor to the donee that
COMPENSATORY Donations subject Title on Donations
includes both their consents
/ CONDITIONAL suspensive to or Civil Code (suppletory)
- Making a donation = Pertains to the time the acceptance of the DONATIONS resolutory conditions
donation made known to the donor (Perfection of Donation)
ONEROUS Donations made with a Laws on Contracts
DONATIONS burden imposed on the
donee
Article 726 Note (Authors understanding)
When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the latter's merits
- Based on commentaries, the nature of the condition in conditional
or of the services rendered by him to the donor, provided they do not constitute a
demandable debt, or when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less
donations will determine if a donation is simple or onerous;
than the value of the thing given, there is also a donation. o If the conditions impose a prestation on the donee, the
donation is onerous
Article 733 o If the conditions only provides for the happening of an
Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts and unforeseen event, then the donation is simple
remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as regards that
portion which exceeds the value of the burden imposed.

- An act of liberality, whereby a person (donor) gives a thing or a

right in favor of another (donee), who accepts it 1. Consent, subject matter, causa (elements of a contract)
2. Necessary formalities
3. Alienation of property by the donor during his lifetime that is
accepted
By their effectiveness: 4. Irrevocability
1. Inter vivos 5. Intention to benefit the donee (animus donandi)
2. Mortis causa 6. Resultant impoverishment of the donor
By the motive
1. Simple CASES ON CHARACTERISTICS/REQUISITES OF A VALID DONATION
2. Remuneratory Ocampo v Ocampo (2004)
3. Compensatory / conditional The children of Sps. Ocampo inherited three parcels of
4. Onerous land from their parents. One of the parcels of land was
under the name of Fidela Ocampo which was donated to
Classification of Donations Inter Vivos the Sps. Ocampo-Barrito. The siblings/co-heirs of Fidela
contested such a donation because they claim co-
MOTIVATION CHARACTER FORM FACTS:
ownership over the land and that it was yet to be
PURE LIBERALITY Simple Donation See below partitioned. According to them, Fidela herself
MERITS OF THE DONEE Simple Donation See below acknowledged the existence of the co-ownership which
MARRIAGE OF DONEE Donation propter Statute of Frauds tainted her donation with bad faith. Fidela claimed to have
nuptias exclusive ownership over the disputed parcel of land.
PAST SERVICES TO DONOR Remuneratory See below I S S U E S : WON there was a valid donation
NOT CONSTITUTING Donation YES. The existence of a co-ownership was not sufficiently
RECOVERABLE DEBTS established. On the other hand, Sps Ocampo-Barrito
presented multiple and convincing pieces of evidence that
PAST SERVICES TO DONOR Payment No special form
solidified their claim that the land was validly donated to
CONSTITUTING
themthey traced its history and substantiated the
RECOVERABLE DEBTS RATIO:
means through which Fidela acquired through her own
PAST SERVICES TO DONOR Payment No special form efforts. Having proven that Fidela owned the property, it
AS A NATURAL was no longer necessary to pass upon her motives for
OBLIGATION doing the same because donation is an act of liberality. Its
FUTURE SERVICES Onerous Donation No special form, essential elements are consent, subject matter, and cause.
Statute of Frauds
IMPOSED WITH A BURDEN, Onerous Donation No special form Heirs of Sevilla v Sevilla (2003)
VALUE OF WHICH NOT Absent fraud, donation automatically vests
DETERMINABLE ownership in the donee.
IMPOSED WITH A BURDEN, Simple Donation See below
Felisa Sevilla donated of her share in a parcel of land to
VALUE OF WHICH DOES
Leopoldo Sevilla before her death. Leopoldos siblings who
NOT EXCEED VALUE OF
were also his co-heirs filed suit against him that sought to
PROPERTY
FACTS: annul the deed of donation issued to him by Felisa. They
IMPOSED WITH A BURDEN, Onerous Donation No special form allege that the donor was of an advanced age, was
VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS seriously ill and of unsound mind at the time the deed was
VALUE OF PROPERTY executedhence, they claim that there was vitiation of

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 70 85

consent. They also presented a deed of extrajudicial
partition that Felisa supposedly executed.
WON fraud was employed by Leopoldo in acquiring the
ISSUES:
property through donation
NO. The burden of proving the presence of fraud in
donations rests on the party who alleges it. The
petitioners were not able to provide evidence that tended
to prove their claims especially since fraud and undue
influence must be established by clear and convincing
RATIO: evidence if they are to annul donations/contracts. Thus,
the supposed EJP executed by Felisa cannot be given
effect because it was done after she donated her property
to Leopoldo. You cannot partition what you do not own;
ownership passes to the donee the moment the donation
is perfected.
Vitug v CA (2002)
A survivorship agreement between spouses is
not a donation.
Vitug sought to be reimbursed for the payment of real
estate taxes that he drew from a bank account that he
shared with his deceased wifehe claimed that the money
FACTS: therein was his personal property pursuant to a
survivorship agreement. The executrix of his wifes estate
sought to disallow him from doing the same because the
funds therein were conjugal properties.
WON a survivorship agreement is a prohibited donation
ISSUES:
between spouses
NO. The survivorship agreement is not a donation. It is
more in the nature of an investment than a donation
RATIO:
between spouses. The rights that Vitug acquired to the
funds were valid and not prohibited by law.
Article 728
Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the donor partake of the
nature of testamentary provisions, and shall be governed by the rules established
in the Title on Succession.
Article 729
When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect during the lifetime
of the donor, though the property shall not be delivered till after the donor's
death, this shall be a donation inter vivos. The fruits of the property from the time
of the acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the donor
provides otherwise.
Article 730
The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive condition, which may
take place beyond the natural expectation of life of the donor, does not destroy
the nature of the act as a donation inter vivos, unless a contrary intention appears.
Article 731
When a person donates something, subject to the resolutory condition of the
donor's survival, there is a donation inter vivos.
Article 732
Donations which are to take effect inter vivos shall be governed by the general
provisions on contracts and obligations in all that is not determined in this Title.
INTER VIVOS MORTIS CAUSA
WHEN EFFECTIVE During the lifetime of After the death of the
the donor donor
TRANSFER OF Immediately after Upon acceptance by
OWNERSHIP/OBJECT acceptance is made the donee, but the
known to the donor effect of such
retroacts to the time
of death of the donor
ACCEPTANCE During the lifetime of After the death of the
the donor and the donor
donee
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || D. Donations inter vivos vs. donations mortis causa || Parties to a donation
Donee
REVOCABILITY Irrevocable by the They are revocable at
donor will
Article 735
All persons who may contract and dispose of their property may make a
donation.
Article 736
Guardians and trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to them.
Article 737
The donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of the making of the
donation.
Article 738
All those who are not specially disqualified by law therefor may accept
donations.
Donor
- Must have the capacity to donate at the time of the donation
o Subsequent incapacity is irrelevant
o But if incapacity prevents the donor from learning of the
acceptance, there is no donation
Donee
- Anyone not disqualified by law may be donees
- Persons conceived but not yet born may accept through persons
who would represent them if already born
- Minors and incapacitated to contract: Acceptance must be made by
their parents or legal representatives
CASES ON DONATIONS INTER VIVOS AND MORTIS CAUSA
Gestopa v CA (2002)
An indication in a deed of donation of the
donors acceptance (acceptance clause)
implies that the donation is inter vivos and not
mortis causa
Diego Danlag donated several parcels of land to Mercedes
Pilapil subject to two conditions: 1) that he would continue
to enjoy the fruits of the same during his lifetime and 2)
the donee cannot sell of dispose of the land without prior
consent or approval of Danlag. Mercedes accepted the
FACTS:
donation. Danlag spouses then proceeded to sell some of
the parcels to Gestopa. Mercedes then proceeded to
contest the sale made to Gestopa. Gestopa raised the
defense that the donation was mortis causa and could be
revoked at any time for whatever reason.
ISSUE: WON the donation was inter vivos
YES. The fact that the original owner reserved the
usufruct of his properties indicates that its naked
ownership had passed to someone else. Also, the
RATIO: acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter
vivosonly donations IV require immediate acceptance
because donations MC may only be accepted upon the
death of the donor.
Pajarillo v IAC (1989)
Absent express stipulation that a donation will
only take effect upon the death of the donor, it
is presumed to take effect immedi ately after
perfection.
The EJP of Perfectas estate after her death honored her
request that a portion of her estate be donated to Salud
who was her only niece. Salud accepted the same. Saluds
mother who had possession of the land subsequently sold
FACTS:
to Claudio. Salud proceeded to question the Deed of
Absolute Sale issued to Claudio. As defense, Claudios heirs
allege that the donation to Salud was legally inefficacious
and defective.
ISSUE: WON the donation was valid
71 85

YES. The Court observed that there was a mere request by
Perfecta to donate a property to Salud which her parents
complied with. Hence, the real donors were Saluds
parents and not Perfecta. Upon acceptance by Salud, the
donation was perfected. Nor did it matter that such
R A T I O : acceptance was not indicated on the EJP, the substance of
the acceptance is given more importance than its form.
Further, there was nothing in the deed of donation that
the donation was to take effect upon the death of the
donors. Absent such express stipulation, the donation is
presumed to take effect immediately.
Austria Magat v CA (2002)
A donation indicating that the property will be
transferred upon the death of the donor but is
irrevocable is not a donation mortis causa but
a donation inter vivos.
Test: Time the donor intended for the perfection
of the donation to occur
The mother of Petitioner and Respondents executed a
Deed of Donation which stated that the property shall
remain with her and shall be transferred only upon her
death, but such donation is irrevocable (this was accepted
FACTS:
by the parties). But before her death, she was able to sell
such land to Petitioner. Respondents now claim that the
property should be theirs, given that it is a donation inter
vivos.
ISSUES: WON such donation is inter vivos
YES. It has been held that whether the donation is inter
vivos or mortis causa depends on whether the donor
intended to transfer ownership over the properties upon
RATIO: the execution of the deed. In this case, it is clear that the
donor wanted to part with the property when it indicated
that such donation is irrevocable. Given that the donation
was inter vivos, the subsequent sale was void.
Ganuelas v Cawed (2003)
Celestina executed a DoD in favor of Ursulina. The same
provides that (1) the donation will become effective upon
the death of the donor (2) if the donee should die before
the donor, the donation shall be deemed rescinded and of
no further force and effect. After her death, Ursulina
FACTS:
claimed ownership over the donated properties saying
that it was a donation inter vivos. Other heirs of Celestina
claim it was a donation mortis causa (hence void for
failure to comply with the formalities of wills and
testaments.)
ISSUE: Mortis Causa or Inter Vivos?
MORTIS CAUSA (NO SHOWING OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS
PRIOR TO DEATH + TRANSFER WOULD BE RESCINDED IF
DONEE DIES BEFORE DONOR); HENCE DONATION IS VOID.
Theres nothing in the present case which indicates that
any right, title, or interest in the donated properties was
to be transferred to Ursulina prior to Celestinas death.
Characteristics of Donation Mortis Causa:
1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee
before the death of the transferor; or, what amounts to
RATIO:
the same thing, that the transferor should retain the
ownership (full or naked) and control of the property
while alive;
2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable
by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability
may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved
power in the donor to dispose of the properties
conveyed;
3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor
should survive the transferee.
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || E. Void donations || Parties to a donation
Made to a Public Officer
Bonsato v CA (1954)
Domingo donated several parcels of land to his brother
and to his nephew (2 separate DoDs; allegedly induced and
deceived). Said DoDs provided that, after the death of the
FACTS:
donor, the aforesaid donation shall become effective.
Domingos heirs claim that the same, being donations
mortis causa, were void for lack of requisite formalities.
ISSUE: Mortis Causa or Inter Vivos?
INTER VIVOS. ART. 749 APPLIES. Domingo only reserved
for himself, during his lifetime, the owners share of the
fruits or produce. A reservation would be unnecessary if
the ownership of the donated property remained with
him. The deeds also expressly declare them to be
RATIO:
irrevocable (a characteristic of an inter vivos donation).
Also, the phrase that after the death must be
construed with the rest of the paragraph which shows
that the donees were made absolute owners of the
donated property.
Article 739
The following donations shall be void:
(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage
at the time of the donation;
(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in
consideration thereof;
(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by
reason of his office.
In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought
by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be
proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.
Made between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage
- Adultery/Concubinage need not be proved in a criminal action
o It may be proved in the civil action for the declaration of
nullity of the donation
o Preponderance of evidence is enough
- If the donation was done after the act of adultery/concubinage, the
donation is still valid, unless its consideration was the donation
Made between persons guilty of the same criminal offense
- This contract is void, as the consideration for the donation is illegal
Made to a Public Officer
- This is to prevent bribery
CASE ON VOID DONATIONS
Arcaba v Tabancura (2001)
Art.87 FC. Every donation or grant of gratuitous
advantage, direct or indirect, b etween the
spouses during the marriage shall be void,
except moderate gifts which the spouses may
give each other on the occasion of any family
rejoicing.
The prohibition shall also apply to persons
living together as husband and wife without a
valid marriage.
Francisco (widower) donated a portion of his lot (+house)
FACTS: to his lover through a DoD Inter Vivos. Intestate heirs
claim that the donation is void under Art. 87 FC.
ISSUE: WoN donation was void.
YES. Francisco and Cirilas public conduct indicated that
their relationship was akin to that of a husband and wife.
Cirila signed the documents using Franciscos last name +
RATIO: the fact that she didnt demand a cash wage from
Francisco even though she was allegedly his caretaker.
The prohibition of donations between husbands and wives
also applies to common-law spouses.
72 85

Article 734
The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance
by the donee.
Article 740
Incapacity to succeed by will shall be applicable to donations inter vivos.
Article 741
Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may become donees but
acceptance shall be done through their parents or legal representatives.
Article 742
Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those
persons who would legally represent them if they were already born.
Article 743
Donations made to incapacitated persons shall be void, though simulated under
the guise of another contract or through a person who is interposed.
Article 744
Donations of the same thing to two or more different donees shall be governed
by the provisions concerning the sale of the same thing to two or more different
persons.
Article 745
The donee must accept the donation personally, or through an authorized person
with a special power for the purpose, or with a general and sufficient power;
otherwise, the donation shall be void.
Article 746
Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and of the donee.
Article 747
Persons who accept donations in representation of others who may not do so by
themselves, shall be obliged to make the notification and notation of which Article
749 speaks.
- Required to be given personally or through an agent
o Whoever accepts the donations has the duty and
obligation to notify and to annotate such acceptance to
the donor
- Must be in a public instrument in accordance with Art. 1358
Notes:
- For donations made to the unborn, remember the rule in Persons
and Family Relations that donations made to them are valid, given
that the same are not unfavourable to them (in cases of onerous
donations)
o Also, note the additional requirements for Art. 742 to
apply (otherwise, the donation is null and void):
The child be born alive later (if it had a
normal intra uterine life)
The child be born alive and should live for at
least 24 hours (if it had less than 7 months of
intra uterine life)
- Since the laws on contracts supplements the title on donations, the
articles on Voidable Contracts may be applied in cases of
acceptance of donations in an insane or drunken state
- The rules on double sales (1544) that are applicable to donations
are as follows:
o Movables:
First person to possess it in good faith
o Immovables:
First person to record its title in good faith
First person to acquire possession in good
faith
Person with the oldest title in good faith
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || F. acceptance of donations || Form of acceptance
Notes:
CASES ON ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS
Lagazo v CA (1998)
Acceptance may be made in the very same
instrument of donation. If it doesn't appear in
the same document, it must be made in another.
Solemn words arent necessary; it is sufficient if
it shows the intention to accept. But in this
case it is necessary that formal notice thereof
be given to the donor, and the fact that d ue
notice has been given must be noted in both
instruments
Catalina (grandma) executed a DoD in favor of Lagazco
(grandson). The latter paid for the arrears and remaining
FACTS: balance of the lot + declared the property in Catalinas
name. Lagazco filed a case to recover possession from
Cabanlit.
WoN donation was onerous
ISSUES:
WoN there was a valid acceptance of the donation
NO. SIMPLE DONATION ONLY. The Ct found that the
payment of the purchase price by Lagazco was not
imposed by Catalina as a condition for the donation. The
deed explicitly stated, in consideration of the love and
affection. And as an act of liberality and generosity
RATIO:
NO. DONATION WAS VOID. Lagazco never presented any
proof that he accepted the donation. It was only at the SC
when he submitted an affidavit that he wholeheartedly
accepted the lot given to him, and this is too late.
Gonzales v CA, Salvador (2001)
Ignacio executed a DoD in favor of his 14 grandchildren
(public doc). This was not registered. PD 27 (Land Transfer
Decree) took effect. Donees argued that land should be
excluded from the same because it is within exemption
FACTS:
grandchild). Upon ruling on the petition for certiorari of
the tenants-farmers of the land, CA held that the land
donated by Ignacio was not exempted from PD 27.
WoN property donated should be excluded from the
ISSUE:
Operation Land Transfer
NO. THE DOD WAS NOT REGISTERED, HENCE NOT
BINDING TO 3RD PERSONS. The donation, although in
writing and duly notarized, was not registered in
RATIO: accordance with law. It is valid but it doesnt bind 3rd
persons (in this case, the farmers-tenants) who didn't
participate in the said deed or had no actual knowledge
thereof.
Article 748
The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing.
An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the
donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing, otherwise, the donation shall
be void.
Article 749
In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the
donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified
thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
73 85

Movable Properties
- If value is P5k or less:
o Donation may be made orally
The thing/document representing the right
must be delivered simultaneously
o Donation and Acceptance must be in writing
If there is no simultaneous delivery.
- If value is more than P5k:
o Donation must be in writing
o Acceptance must be in writing
Immovable Property
- Donation and Acceptance must be in a public instrument
o Must specify the property donated, its value and
burdens assumed by the donee
- Acceptance must be either in the same document or in a separate
public instrument
- If the acceptance is made on a separate public instrument:
o The donor must be notified in an authentic form
o Such must be attached to the deed of donation and to
the deed of acceptance
- If the public instrument fails to include the identity of the property,
the donation is VOID35
- Donations propter nuptias need no express acceptance
Notes:
- Art. 1357 (Ability to force a party to put into writing a valid
contract) is only applies to valid and enforceable contracts
o Given that without a written acceptance there is no
donation yet, Art. 1357 cannot be invoked.
- Just to reiterate, the abovementioned rules do not apply to onerous
donations (rule on public instrument, etc.)36
CASES ON FORMALITIES OF A DONATION
Quilala v Alcantara (2001)
The requisites of a valid deed of donation are:
first, as to its solemnity, it must be made in a
public instrument specifying the property and
the value of the charges to be satisfied by the
donee; second, as to its perfection, the donee,
who is not disqualified or prohibited by law
from accepting, must accept the donation
during the donors lifetime; and finally, the
donor must know of this acceptance, which must
be made either in the same deed or in a
separate document.
Catalina Quilala donated a parcel of land to her alleged
daughter, Violeta, through a document consisting of 2
pages: the 1st page was the deed of donation signed by
both Catalina as donor and Violeta as the donee, while the
2nd page was the acknowledgment signed by Catalina and
her witness and Violeta and her witness. This deed was
FACTS:
registered in the Registry of Deeds, and a TCT was issued
to Violeta. Upon Catalina and Violetas deaths, Ricky
Quilala alleges that he is the owner of the property, since
he is Violetas son. Meanwhile, Catalinas first cousins
divided and adjudicated the property, alleging that they
were Catalinas only surviving relatives.
ISSUE: Was the donation valid?
YES. The donation satisfied all three requisites of a valid
donation. First, the document was notarized, and it
specified the property in terms of its TCT number and
technical description. The document also indicated a
RATIO: consideration, which was love and affection. Second, the
body of the deed explicitly manifested Violetas
acceptance, and her signature and that of her witness
appeared thereon. The fact that these signatures
appeared on the wrong margin does not affect the validity
35
Manansala v. Sunga, CA (1959)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || G. formalities of donations || Formalities of Donations
Immovable Property
of the acceptance. Thus, the third requisite of acceptance
appearing in the same document is also fulfilled.
Abellana v Sps. Ponce (2004)
An oral donation of immovable property is void.
Mere intent to convey without the solemnities
required by law will not suffice. Unlike ordinary
contracts perfected by consent, solemn
contracts like donations are perfected only
upon compliance with the legal formalities.
Abellana purchased a lot, which she intended to give to
Ponce, her niece. Abellana then applied for the issuance of
title in Ponces name, but even when it was issued she
remained in possession, paid for its taxes, and introduced
FACTS:
developments thereon. The relationship between Abellana
and Ponce soured, however, so Abellana filed this case to
revoke the implied trust and recover legal title to the
property.
ISSUE: Was there an implied trust?
NO. By designating Ponce as the vendee and having title
issued in her name, Abellana had made a donation of
immovable property. It is, however, void for
noncompliance with the form required by law. It was not
embodied in a public document, and was merely an oral
RATIO: donation. Evidently, there was intent to transfer
ownership of the lot to Ponce. But naked intent to convey
property without the proper solemnities will not suffice,
because a donation is perfected only upon complying with
these solemnities, unlike ordinary contracts, which are
perfected by mere consent.
Sumipat v Banga (2004)
In order for title to pass from donor to donee,
the donation must be made in a public
instrument, and there must be evidence of the
donors acceptance and donees knowledge,
whether in the same instrument or in a separate
document. Before the registrar of deeds re cords
such conveyance, there must be certification
that the donors taxes have been paid.
The spouses Sumipat acquired 3 parcels of land as their
conjugal property. They had no children together, but
Lauro Sumipat had 5 children with another woman. These
children are the plaintiffs herein, who claim that the
spouses had executed a Deed of Absolute Transfer
and/or Quitclaim over Real Properties in their favor.
FACTS: Apparently, however, this had been signed while Lauro had
been on his deathbed, while Placida Sumipat was made to
sign said deed without being told its contents. After
Lauros death, Placida later found that she no longer had
title to the properties, since ownership had been
transferred to petitioners. She then brought action to
nullify the deed and recover the lots.
ISSUE: Whether a valid transfer of ownership had been made?
NO. The deed is actually a deed of donation, but in
donations, title to immovable property shall not pass until
and unless the donee has accepted the donation in a
public instrument and the donor has been duly notified of
such acceptance. The acceptance may be made in the
same instrument, or in another. For failure to follow these
RATIO: formalities, the deed is an absolute nullity, and the time to
assail it does not prescribe. Likewise mandatory are the
filing of return and the payment of donors taxes. The
registrar of deeds is mandated not to register any
document conveyed by donation inter vivos unless there is
a certification that the taxes due on the transfer have
been paid, or that it is tax exempt.
36
Manalo v. De Mesa, Danquilan v. IAC
74 85
 XIII. Donation || H. effects of donations and limitations || Limitations to Donations
In General

Article 727 Conditions/Periods

Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall be - If a condition is illegal/impossible, the donation is still valid and the
considered as not imposed.
said conditions are disregarded
Article 750 o In the laws on contracts, the contract becomes void,
The donations may comprehend all the present property of the donor, or part unless the condition not to do an impossible thing,
thereof, provided he reserves, in full ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for which would just invalidate the condition, and not the
the support of himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of contract. This is important to take note, as Onerous
the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor. Without such Contracts are governed by the laws on contracts
reservation, the donation shall be reduced in petition of any person affected.
- Even if the condition set may take place even after the death of the
Article 751 donor, the donation is still inter vivos
Donations cannot comprehend future property. - In cases of reversion clauses (property to revert back to the donor),
By future property is understood anything which the donor cannot dispose of at it can only be reverted to:
the time of the donation. o The donor
o In favor of third persons, who must be alive at the time
Article 752 of the donation
The provisions of Article 750 notwithstanding, no person may give or receive, by If such person is not yet alive/dead already,
way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will. such stipulation will be void, but the donation
The donation shall be inofficious in all that it may exceed this limitation. shall subsist
* What happens if the 2nd donee does not accept the
Article 753 donation? Will the donation to the 1st donee subsist?
When a donation is made to several persons jointly, it is understood to be in equal - Stipulations that oblige the donee to pay the debts of the donor
shares, and there shall be no right of accretion among them, unless the donor has
o Donee to pay only prior debts, unless stipulated
otherwise provided.
o Amount of debts payable shall not exceed the value of
The preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to donations made to the
husband and wife jointly, between whom there shall be a right of accretion, if the
the property, unless stipulated
contrary has not been provided by the donor. Subject Matter
1. Future property cannot be donated
Article 754
The donee is subrogated to all the rights and actions which in case of eviction - Only if it cannot be disposed of at the time of the donation
would pertain to the donor. The latter, on the other hand, is not obliged to warrant - EXCEPTION: Donations between spouses in the marriage
the things donated, save when the donation is onerous, in which case the donor settlement
shall be liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden. 2. For donors with forced heirs:
The donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case of bad faith - No person can give/receive by donation what he cannot
on his part. give/receive by will
Article 755 - The excess is inofficious
The right to dispose of some of the things donated, or of some amount which 3. For donors without forced heirs:
shall be a charge thereon, may be reserved by the donor; but if he should die - The donor must reserve property sufficient to support him
without having made use of this right, the property or amount reserved shall and those relatives entitled to support from him
belong to the donee.
- Must also reserve sufficient property in payment of debts
Article 756
The ownership of property may also be donated to one person and the usufruct
to another or others, provided all the donees are living at the time of the donation.
In General
Article 757 1. Donee may demand the actual delivery of the donated property
Reversion may be validly established in favor of only the donor for any case and 2. Donee is subrogated to the rights of the donor
circumstances, but not in favor of other persons unless they are all living at the 3. Donor does not warrant against eviction, unless the donation is
time of the donation. onerous
Any reversion stipulated by the donor in favor of a third person in violation of 4. The donor is liable for eviction/hidden defects if he acted in bad
what is provided in the preceding paragraph shall be void, but shall not nullify the faith
donation.
5. The donors warranty exists if the:
Article 758 a. Warranty is expressed
When the donation imposes upon the donee the obligation to pay the debts of b. Donation is propter nuptias
the donor, if the clause does not contain any declaration to the contrary, the c. Donation is onerous
former is understood to be liable to pay only the debts which appear to have been d. Donation is in bad faith
previously contracted. In no case shall the donee be responsible for the debts 6. When the donation is made to several donees jointly, it is presumed
exceeding the value of the property donated, unless a contrary intention clearly that they share the property equally, unless the contrary is
appears. expressly provided
Article 759
7. No right of accretion (right to the unaccepted portion) exists
between 2 or more donees, unless provided in the deed of donation
There being no stipulation regarding the payment of debts, the donee shall be
responsible therefor only when the donation has been made in fraud of creditors.
The donation is always presumed to be in fraud of creditors, when at the time
thereof the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay his debts prior to the
donation.

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 75 85

CASES ON EFFECTS OF DONATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Solis v CA (1989)
A void donation may be the basis of a claim of
ownership and may ripen into title by
prescription.
The petitioners Solis inherited a parcel of land, on the
eastern part of which they allowed the respondents Solis
to build a house. The understanding was that the
respondents Solis would vacate as soon as their financial
conditions permit them. 27 years later, the petitioners
FACTS:
Solis demanded that the respondents vacate, but the
latter refused. The respondents claim that they had
acquired the land through donation propter nuptias from
the petitioners, have been in open, continuous, and
adverse possession in the concept of owners since then.
Have the respondents Solis acquired ownership over the
ISSUE:
land?
YES. They have done so not by virtue of donation propter
nuptias, but by virtue of prescription. A void donation may
be the basis of a claim of ownership, which may then ripen
into prescription. The donation was made prior to the old
RATIO:
Civil Code, which requires only 10 years of adverse
possession. Regardless of when the cause of action
accrued, 20 years have already lapsed, so petitioners
action is barred.
Reyes v Mosqueda (1990)
Whether a donation is inter vivos or mortis
causa depends upon its nature, and not in its
title in the deed of donation.
Ursula Pascual, sister of the intestate deceased, Dr. Emilio
Pascual, sought to exclude some properties from her
FACTS: brothers properties and to deliver the titles thereof,
alleging that Dr. Pascual had made a donation mortis
causa of these properties to her.
Was the donation mortis causa actually a donation inter
ISSUE:
vivos?
YES. Although it was titled DONATION MORTIS CAUSA
the Court ruled that it was actually a donation inter vivos,
because the transfer of ownership was immediate and
independent of the donors death. Whether a donation is
inter vivos or mortis causa depends upon its nature, and
not its title in the document. A donation mortis causa has
the following characteristics:
(1) It conveys no ownership to the donee before the
RATIO: donors death, so that the donor retains naked
ownership and control of the property while alive;
(2) It is revocable at the donors will before his death;
(3) It is void if the donor should survive the donee.
The provision in the deed regarding the reservation of
properties for the donors subsistence in relation to other
provisions in the deed confirms the intention of the donor
to give naked ownership of the donees immediately after
the execution of the deed.
Shoppers Paradise v Roque (2004)
It is enough that the donation be in a public
instrument to be valid between the parties, but
in order to bind third persons, it must be
registered in the registry of property.
Shoppers Paradise entered into a 25-year lease and
memorandum of agreement for the construction,
development, and operation of a commercial building with
Dr. Felipe Roque, who died during the period of lease. His
son, respondent Efren Roque, petitioned for the
FACTS: annulment of the lease and the MOA, alleging that he had
long been the owner of the subject property by virtue of a
deed of donation inter vivos executed by his parents in his
favor. He thus alleges that the late doctor no longer had
any authority to enter into the assailed lease and MOA.
The donation, though made in a public instrument duly
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || I. revocation and reduction of donations || Effects of Donations
In General
acknowledged and duly accepted, was not registered in
the registry of property. But Shoppers had knowledge of
this donation.
Was there a valid donation, in spite of it being
ISSUE:
unregistered?
YES. Non-registration does not affect the validity of the
donation. In order to be valid, it must be contained in a
public document; that will suffice to bind the parties. In
order to bind third persons, however, the donation must
be registered in the registry of property. An exception
exists where such party has knowledge of a prior existing
RATIO:
interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a
right thereto, his knowledge of that unregistered interest
would have the effect of registration as regards to him.
Here, since the donation was valid and known to Shoppers
Paradise, Dr. Roque could not have validly executed a
lease over the property. Lease and MOA void.
Article 760
Every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no children or descendants,
legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage, or illegitimate, may be
revoked or reduced as provided in the next article, by the happening of any of these
events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or legitimated or
illegitimate children, even though they be posthumous;
(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead when he made
the donation, should turn out to be living;
(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a minor child.
Article 761
In the cases referred to in the preceding article, the donation shall be revoked or
reduced insofar as it exceeds the portion that may be freely disposed of by will,
taking into account the whole estate of the donor at the time of the birth,
appearance or adoption of a child.
Article 762
Upon the revocation or reduction of the donation by the birth, appearance or
adoption of a child, the property affected shall be returned or its value if the
donee has sold the same.
If the property is mortgaged, the donor may redeem the mortgage, by paying the
amount guaranteed, with a right to recover the same from the donee.
When the property cannot be returned, it shall be estimated at what it was worth
at the time of the donation.
Article 763
The action for revocation or reduction on the grounds set forth in article 760 shall
prescribe after four years from the birth of the first child, or from his 3legitimation,
recognition or adoption, or from the judicial declaration of filiation, or from the
time information was received regarding the existence of the child believed dead.
This action cannot be renounced, and is transmitted, upon the death of the donor,
to his legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants.
Article 764
The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails
to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor, the alienations
made by the donee and the mortgages imposed thereon by him being void, with
the limitations established, with regard to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and
the Land Registration Laws.
This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance with the
condition, may be transmitted to t++he heirs of the donor, and may be exercised
against the donee's heirs.
Article 765
The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of
ingratitude in the following cases:
(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor
or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children under his parental
authority;
(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any act
involving moral turpitude, even though he should prove it, unless the
crime or the act has been committed against the donee himself, his wife or
children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally
bound to give support to the donor.
76 85

Article 766
Although the donation is revoked on account of ingratitude, nevertheless, the
alienations and mortgages effected before the notation of the complaint for
revocation in the Registry of Property shall subsist.
Later ones shall be void.
Article 767
In the case referred to in the first paragraph of the preceding article, the donor
shall have a right to demand from the donee the value of property alienated which
he cannot recover from third persons, or the sum for which the same has been
mortgaged.
The value of said property shall be fixed as of the time of the donation.
Article 768
When the donation is revoked for any of the causes stated in Article 760, or by
reason of ingratitude, or when it is reduced because it is inofficious, the donee
shall not return the fruits except from the filing of the complaint.
If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the conditions
imposed in the donation, the donee shall return not only the property but also the
fruits thereof which he may have received after having failed to fulfill the
condition.
Article 769
The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be renounced in
advance. This action prescribes within one year, to be counted from the time the
donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action.
Article 770
This action shall not be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, if the latter did not
institute the same, although he could have done so, and even if he should die
before the expiration of one year.
Neither can this action be brought against the heir of the donee, unless upon the
latter's death the complaint has been filed.
Article 771
Donations which in accordance with the provisions of Article 752, are inofficious,
bearing in mind the estimated net value of the donor's property at the time of
his death, shall be reduced with regard to the excess; but this reduction shall not
prevent the donations from taking effect during the life of the donor, nor shall it
bar the donee from appropriating the fruits.
For the reduction of donations the provisions of this Chapter and of Articles 911
and 912 of this Code shall govern.
Article 772
Only those who at the time of the donor's death have a right to the legitime and
their heirs and successors-in-interest may ask for the reduction or inofficious
donations.
Those referred to in the preceding paragraph cannot renounce their right during
the lifetime of the donor, either by express declaration, or by consenting to the
donation.
The donees, devisees and legatees, who are not entitled to the legitime and the
creditors of the deceased can neither ask for the reduction nor avail themselves
thereof.
Article 773
If, there being two or more donations, the disposable portion is not sufficient to
cover all of them, those of the more recent date shall be suppressed or reduced
with regard to the excess.
REDUCTION REVOCATION
Amount is only insofar as it Revocation is total withdrawal of
prejudices the legitimes amount/property donated
Will depend upon the value of the Regardless of impairment of
impaired legitimes legitimes
Benefits the heirs of the donor, Benefits the donor
except when made on the ground
of the appearance of a child
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || || Effects of Donations
In General
CASES ON REVOCATION AND REDUCTION OF DONATIONS
Republic v Silim (2001)
Noncompliance with the charges in the donation
is a ground to void the donation.
Silim & Mangubat donated land, on which the Municipality
of Malangas in Zambo del Norte was obliged to build a
school. Funds were raised for the building of the school,
but the governments requirement was that the school be
erected on a 1 hectare piece of land. Another plot of land
FACTS: was substituted for Silim & Mangubats land, because it
was bigger, and the structures for the school building
already constructed were transferred to the new plot of
land. Silim & Mangubat saw that the Vice Mayor was
building his house on Silim & Mangubats land, so the
defendants brought suit to revoke the donation.
Was the donation void due to noncompliance with the
ISSUE:
condition?
NO. A valid onerous donation was made. The exchange did
not violate the condition that a school must be built on
the land. The purpose of the land remained the same. The
RATIO:
exchange of the donated land for a larger one is actually
an enhancement of the donation and was done to pursue
the purpose of building a school.
The Court in this case used the concept of noncompliance,
SIR which should not apply to onerous donations. The law on
CHENG: contracts, and not the provisions on donations, should
govern onerous donations.
De Luna v Abrigo (1990)
Onerous donations are treated in the same way
as contracts and therefore prescribe in ten
years not in four years
De Luna donated land to Luzonian University Foundation.
Upon failure to comply, on 1971 De Luna revived said
donation, w/ stipulation for automatic reversion upon
FACTS:
violation of condition. Condition was to build a chapel,
nursery and kindergarten in the name of St. Victoria. Heirs
brought action for revocation on September 1980.
ISSUE: When does action for revocation prescribe
10 YEARS. NCC 764 states 4 years as prescription period
for donations. But in the case at hand, court held that
donation was an onerous donation and governed by
RATIO:
NCC733, which states that onerous donations shall be
governed by contracts and written contracts expire in 10
years
CJ Yulo and Sons v Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Pablo
(2005)
Onerous donations are governed by the l aw on
contracts.
Yulo donated land to Roman Catholic w/ the condition to
use it to build a home for the aged and cannot be used for
FACTS: any other purpose except as stated in the deed w/o
consent. Donee leased land thrice to generate funds for
construction.
ISSUE: Was the leasing of land w/o consent a substantial breach?
NO. Court held it was only a casual breach hence no
RATIO: revocation. In fact, the leases were pursuant to the
Romans objective of providing a home for the aged.
77 85
 XIII. Donation || J. Grounds for Reduction and revocation of donations || Reduction
Notes:

Sec. of Education v Heirs of Dulay (2006)

On 1981, Sps. Dulay donated land to DECS for school
purposes. Planting of palay cannot be considered as
FACTS:
school purposes as intended. Heirs instituted action for
revocation on 1997.
I S S U E S : WON prescription barred action for recovery
NO. Non-fulfillment of a done of a condition imposed by
the donor brings about the right of the latter to revoke
the donation. Prescriptive period of an onerous donation
such as this is governed by 1144 CC (10 years) as opposed
to 764 CC (4 years) from the time of non-fulfillment of
R A T I O : condition. Failure to comply w/ condition only became
manifest in 1988 when a school building was built at
another property. Also, since no fixed period was set,
NCC1197 applies wherein the courts will fix a period. Court
held that donee was given sufficient time to comply but
failed to do so.

1. Reduction for the appearance of children in cases of:

a. Additional legitimate/illegitimate children
b. Appearance of believed dead child
c. Adoption of a minor child
2. Inofficiousness
3. Insufficient means of support
4. In fraud of creditors

CONCEPT TIME OF ACTION WHO MAY ASK PRESCRIPTION

INSUFFICIENT For the protection and At any time, at donors instance Donor himself / Relatives entitled May be demanded for as long as
MEANS OF sustenance of the or at instance of relatives to support support is needed
SUPPORT donor entitled to the donors support
INOFFICIOUSNESS For the protection of Only after the death of the Only to those who have a right to 10 years from the time the cause of
the actual legitimes of donor the legitime at the time of donors action accrues
the forced heirs death + their heirs and successors (governed by Art. 1144, because it is a
written contract)
5 years from the death of the donor, if
the heirs ask for the reduction
(governed by Art. 1149)
CHILDREN For the protection of Upon the birth, appearance or Donor himself 4 years from:
the presumptive adoption of the child Legitimate and illegitimate - Birth of first legitimate child
legitimes of the child + children and descendants of - Legitimation, adoption,
premium on the donor upon his death recognition of first child
donors affection and
- Judicial declaration of filiation
generosity to his
children - Knowledge of info on existence of
a child believed dead
IN FRAUD OF For the protection of From the time of the cause of Donor himself 4 years from the time the cause of
CREDITORS preferred and secured action arises, either: Creditors action arises
creditors - Perfection of contract in Assigns
fraud of creditor Heirs
- Knowledge of the donation Successors-in-interest

1. Failure to comply with any of the conditions imposed by the donor upon the donee
2. Ingratitude:
a. Commission of an offense by the donee against the donor, his property or honor, or wife or children, under his parental authority
b. Imputation of a crime/act involving moral turpitude to the donor by the donee
UNLESS the crime/act was committed by the donor against the donee, his wife or children under his authority
This is regardless of the truth/falsity of the offense
c. Undue refusal to support the donor, when the donee is legally/morally obliged to do so
d. When the donee-spouse gives cause for legal separation37
3. Revocation for additional legitimes in cases of:
a. Additional legitimate/illegitimate children
b. Appearance of believed dead child
c. Adoption of a minor child
Notes:
- If there exists more than one ground for the revocation, prescription shall start from the moment the earliest cause occurs

37
Article 64, Family Code
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 78 85
 XIII. Donation || K. Effects of reduction and revocation || Reduction
Notes:

CONCEPT TIME OF ACTION WHO MAY ASK PRESCRIPTION

NON-COMPLIANCE Compliance of the After failure to comply with the Donor himself 4 years from failure to comply with the
WITH CONDITION conditions is one of conditions His heirs upon his death conditions
the considerations of
the donation.
INGRATITUDE One who has been From knowledge of the offense Donor Within 1 year from knowledge AND it was
the object of possible for him to bring the action
generosity must not
turn ungrateful.
CHILDREN For the protection of Upon the birth, appearance or Donor himself 4 years from:
the presumptive adoption of the child Legitimate and - Birth of first child
legitimes of the child illegitimate children and - Legitimation, adoption, recognition of
descendants of donor first child
upon his death - Judicial declaration of filiation
- Knowledge of info on existence of a
child believed dead

GENERAL EFFECTS FRUITS

INSUFFICIENT Reduced as to the extent necessary to provide support Donee shall not return the fruits except from the time complaint was filed
MEANS OF
SUPPORT
INOFFICIOUSNESS Reduced insofar as excess, but donation is valid during Donee may still appropriate the fruits received from the remaining portion,
donors lifetime and donee may appropriate fruits but the fruits from the returned portion must also be returned from the
time complaint was filed
CHILDREN Property exceeding what may be disposed of by will or Donee shall not return the fruits except from the time complaint was filed
value thereof (estimated at the time of donation) shall be
returned
If property is sold, its value at the time of donation shall be
returned
If property is mortgaged, donor may redeem mortgage by
paying the amount guaranteed (right to recover such
amount from donee)
IN FRAUD OF Return the property object of the contract + price w/ Donee to return fruits OR pay creditor damages if fruits cannot be
CREDITORS interests returned
Donation rescinded only insofar as extent necessary to
cover damages caused

GENERAL EFFECTS FRUITS

NON-COMPLIANCE Donor to choose between specific performance or Donee shall return the fruits received after failing to fulfill condition
WITH CONDITION revocation
Property or value thereof returns to donor
Alienations & mortgages by donee are void
- Unless third parties were purchasers in GF
INGRATITUDE Property or value thereof returns to donor (at the time of Donee shall not return the fruits except from the time complaint was filed
donation)
Alienations & mortgages by donee are valid
- Except those made after the revocation
- The amounts the donor cannot recover from third
persons or sums received because of the mortgage are
recoverable from the donee
CHILDREN Property exceeding what may be disposed of by will or value Donee shall not return the fruits except from the time complaint was filed
thereof (estimated at the time of donation) shall be
returned
If property is sold, its value at the time of donation shall be
returned
If property is mortgaged, donor may redeem mortgage by
paying the amount guaranteed (right to recover such
amount from donee)

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 79 85

CASE ON GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF DONATIONS
Santos v Alana (2005)
Rolando and Costancia (half-blood siblings) fight over
F A C T S : land left by father. Before fathers death, land was
donated and then sold to Rolando.
ISSUE: WON the sale to Rolando is invalid
YES. Donation is inofficious as it impairs legitime of
Costancia because father left no other property. Action
RATIO:
has not yet prescribed. NCC 1144, 10 year prescriptive
period applies for inofficious donations.
- Not waivable during the lifetime of the donor, not even if the heir
agreed to the donation
- The action cannot be waived in advance
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado
XIII. Donation || L. Waiver of revocation/reduction of donations || Reduction
Notes:
CASES ON INGRATITUDE OF DONEE
Eduarte v CA (1996)
Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed
is a nullity and conveys no title, there are
instances when such a fraudulent document may
become the root of a valid title. One such
instance is when the title was al ready
subsequently transferred to an innocent
purchaser who relies on what appeared in the
certificate.
Pedro owned land. He donated the entire land to his niece
Helen. Helen then sold the land to petitioner spouses.
Pedro filed an action to have donation to Helen revoked
FACTS:
and for the subsequent sale to petitioners annulled on the
ground that Helen committed an act of ingratitude under
Art. 765 when she forged his signature.
ISSUE: WON there was a valid ground for revocation of donation*
YES. ALL CRIMES W/C OFFEND THE DONOR SHOW
INGRATITUDE AND ARE CAUSES FOR REVOCATION. There
was indeed an act of ingratitude and therefore a valid
RATIO: ground for the revocation of the donation. However, the
sale to the spouses may not be annulled because they
were innocent purchasers of value. Helen to pay donor
damages.
Noceda v CA and Director (1999)
The law does not require conviction of the
donee; it is enough that the offense be proved
in the action for revocation
Heirs partitioned lot extrajudicially. Directo donated a
FACTS: portion to Noceda. He then usurped Directos whole
portion, she subsequently asked for revocation.
WON revocation is proper and was filed w/in the
ISSUE:
prescriptive period
YES. Revocation was correct and filed at the right time.
The action to revoke by reason of ingratitude prescribes
within one (1) year to be counted from the time (a) the
donor had knowledge of the fact; (b) provided that it was
RATIO:
possible for him to bring the action. Burden of proof lies
w/ donee to show that prescription has already set in,
which was not proven in this case. Usurpation is an offense
against the property of donor and an act of ingratitude.
80 85
 XIV. Prescription || A. General Provisions || Definition of prescription
Note:

XIV. Prescription
- One acquires ownership and other real rights through the
lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions by law
Article 1106 through prescription
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of - Through prescription, rights and actions are also lost
time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription.
1. Acquisitive Prescription
Article 1107
2. Extinctive Prescription
Persons who are capable of acquiring property or rights by the other legal modes
may acquire the same by means of prescription.
Minors and other incapacitated persons may acquire property or rights by PRESCRIPTION LACHES
prescription, either personally or through their parents, guardians or legal SOURCE Civil Code, based on Based on Equity
representatives. Public Policy
Article 1108
BASIS Ability to bring the One has slept on his
right and delay in the rights
Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against:
bringing of such right
(1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or
other legal representatives; PLEADED? Must be pleaded Need not be pleaded
(2) Absentees who have administrators, either appointed by them before their PERIOD Fixed by law Dependent on
disappearance, or appointed by the courts; circumstances
(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators;
(4) Juridical persons, except the State and its subdivisions.

Persons who are disqualified from administering their property have a right to 1. Minors, incapacitated persons
claim damages from their legal representatives whose negligence has been the
cause of prescription. - Corollary to the fact that they may benefit from prescription;
must have legal representation through parents/guardians
Article 1109 2. Absentees with administrators
Prescription does not run between husband and wife, even though there be a 3. Persons living abroad with managers or administrators
separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlements or by judicial 4. Juridical persons, except the State
decree. 5. If it is the administrators negligence is the cause of prescription,
Neither does prescription run between parents and children, during the minority the person whose property was being administered/has been lost is
or insanity of the latter, and between guardian and ward during the continuance entitled to damages
of the guardianship.
6. A married woman (prescription runs in her favor and against her)
Article 1110 7. Person against whom a co-proprietor obtains prescription
Prescription, acquisitive and extinctive, runs in favor of, or against a married (prescription also benefits other co-owners)
woman.

Article 1111
1. Husband and wife, even though there is a separation of property
Prescription obtained by a co-proprietor or a co-owner shall benefit the others.
2. Parents and children, during minority/insanity of the latter
Article 1112 3. Between guardian and ward, during the guardianship
Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already * (Rationale for #2 and #3: Avoid conflict with the interests of the person they are tasked
obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future. to protect)
Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation
results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.
G.R: All things susceptible of appropriation
Article 1113
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, E: Movables possess through a crime
unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not Properties of the state that are not patrimonial
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
Lands registered under the Torrens title38
Article 1114 An action of the government/government body
Creditors and all other persons interested in making the prescription effective An action for mandamus
may avail themselves thereof notwithstanding the express or tacit renunciation by
An action to enforce an express trust
the debtor or proprietor.
An action to quiet title to property
Article 1115 An action/defense to declare a contract/judgement void ab initio
The provisions of the present Title are understood to be without prejudice to what
in this Code or in special laws is established with respect to specific cases of
An action to recover registered land
prescription. Note:
Article 1116 - Though registered lands cannot be acquired through prescription, it
Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed
still can be acquired through an adverse possession through laches.
by laws previously in force; but if since the time this Code took effect the entire In the case of Lola v. CA (1986), the petitioners were able to
period herein required for prescription should elapse, the present Code shall be acquire title to the property by virtue of the equitable principle of
applicable, even though by the former laws a longer period might be required. laches due to the respondent's failure to assert her claims and
ownership for 32 years.

38
Gallardo v. IAC (1987)
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 81 85
 XIV. Prescription || B. Prescription of Ownership and Other Real Rights || Objects of Prescription
Note:

The ownership of personal property also prescribes through uninterrupted

possession for eight years, without need of any other condition.
With regard to the right of the owner to recover personal property lost or of
Article 1117 which he has been illegally deprived, as well as with respect to movables
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or acquired in a public sale, fair, or market, or from a merchant's store the
extraordinary. provisions of Articles 559 and 1505 of this Code shall be observed.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good faith and
with just title for the time fixed by law. Article 1133
Movables possessed through a crime can never be acquired through prescription
Article 1118 by the offender.
Possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and
uninterrupted. Article 1134
Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by
Article 1119 ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.
Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance
Article 1135
of the owner shall not be available for the purposes of possession.
In case the adverse claimant possesses by mistake an area greater, or less than
Article 1120 that expressed in his title, prescription shall be based on the possession.
Possession is interrupted for the purposes of prescription, naturally or civilly.
Article 1136
Article 1121 Possession in wartime, when the civil courts are not open, shall not be counted in
Possession is naturally interrupted when through any cause it should cease for favor of the adverse claimant.
more than one year.
Article 1137
The old possession is not revived if a new possession should be exercised by the
same adverse claimant. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through
uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title
Article 1122 or of good faith.
If the natural interruption is for only one year or less, the time elapsed shall be
Article 1138
counted in favor of the prescription.
In the computation of time necessary for prescription the following rules shall be
Article 1123 observed:
Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor. (1) The present possessor may complete the period necessary for
prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor
Article 1124 in interest;
Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise (2) It is presumed that the present possessor who was also the possessor at a
to interruption: previous time, has continued to be in possession during the intervening
time, unless there is proof to the contrary;
(1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities;
(3) The first day shall be excluded and the last day included.
(2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the
proceedings to lapse;
(3) If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint.
In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall be counted for the
prescription.
Article 1139
Article 1125 Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.
Any express or tacit recognition which the possessor may make of the owner's
Article 1140
right also interrupts possession.
Actions to recover movables shall prescribe eight years from the time the
Article 1126 possession thereof is lost, unless the possessor has acquired the ownership by
prescription for a less period, according to Articles 1132, and without prejudice to
Against a title recorded in the Registry of Property, ordinary prescription of
the provisions of Articles 559, 1505, and 1133.
ownership or real rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a third person,
except in virtue of another title also recorded; and the time shall begin to run
from the recording of the latter. Article 1141
Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
As to lands registered under the Land Registration Act, the provisions of that
special law shall govern. This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of
ownership and other real rights by prescription.
Article 1127
The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person Article 1142
from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his A mortgage action prescribes after ten years.
ownership.
Article 1143
Article 1128 The following rights, among others specified elsewhere in this Code, are not
The conditions of good faith required for possession in Articles 526, 527, 528, and extinguished by prescription:
529 of this Code are likewise necessary for the determination of good faith in the (1) To demand a right of way, regulated in Article 649;
prescription of ownership and other real rights. (2) To bring an action to abate a public or private nuisance.

Article 1129 Article 1144

For the purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right
came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law of action accrues:
for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the (1) Upon a written contract;
owner or could not transmit any right. (2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment
Article 1130
The title for prescription must be true and valid. Article 1145
The following actions must be commenced within six years:
Article 1131
(1) Upon an oral contract;
For the purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed.
(2) Upon a quasi-contract.
Article 1132
Article 1146
The ownership of movables prescribes through uninterrupted possession for four
The following actions must be instituted within four years:
years in good faith.
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 82 85
 XIV. Prescription || C. Prescription of Actions || Acquisitive Prescription
Effects of Interruption

However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of - Just title is not presumed. It must be proven.
any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from
Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
must be brought within one (1) year.

Article 1147
The following actions must be filed within one year: Concept
(1) For forcible entry and detainer; - Acts limiting the time within which actions may be brought
(2) For defamation. - They do not confer any right of action, but are enacted to restrict
the period within which the right, otherwise unlimited, might be
Article 1148 asserted
The limitations of action mentioned in Articles 1140 to 1142, and 1144 to 1147 are - These are not substantive rights but are available as defenses
without prejudice to those specified in other parts of this Code, in the Code of - Remember that the prescriptive periods in the Civil Code only
Commerce, and in special laws.
applies to civil actions, and not criminal actions
Article 1149 How to use the defenses under the statute of limitations?
All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must - These should be pleaded during trial. They court cannot supply this
be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues.
defense nor does it apply automatically
Article 1150 - The right to prescription may be waived or renounced, if not
The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special pleaded before or during the hearing of the case
provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be o But there have been exceptions to this rule, where
brought. evidence proving such defenses were adduced in court.
In such cases, the defense of prescription was
Article 1151
The time for the prescription of actions which have for their object the
enforcement of obligations to pay principal with interest or annuity runs from
the last payment of the annuity or of the interest. - The present possessor may tack his possession to that of his
grantor or predecessor-in-interest
Article 1152
The period for prescription of actions to demand the fulfillment of obligation - Presumption: That the present possessor who was also the
declared by a judgment commences from the time the judgment became final. possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in possession
during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary;
Article 1153
The period for prescription of actions to demand accounting runs from the day
the persons who should render the same cease in their functions.
The period for the action arising from the result of the accounting runs from the Types of Interruption
date when said result was recognized by agreement of the interested parties. 1. Naturally
2. Civilly
Article 1154
The period during which the obligee was prevented by a fortuitous event from Natural Interruption
enforcing his right is not reckoned against him. - Any natural cause that interrupts the possession for more than one
year
Article 1155
o If the natural interruption is less than one year, then it
The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court,
when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is
shall not be considered as an interruption
any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. - Prescription during wartime, when the civil courts are closed, are
also considered as interruptions
Civil Interruption (for acquisitive prescription)
- Shall start from the time judicial summons are received
Types of Acquisitive Prescription
- Period of interruption shall be counted in favor of prescription if:
1. Ordinary
o Such summons be void
2. Extraordinary
o Plaintiff should desist from the complaint
Requisites of Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription o Possessor shall be absolved from the complaint
1. Capacity to acquire by prescription * In these cases, its as if the interruption never happened (merely suspended)
2. Thing must be acquirable through prescription - Express/tacit recognition of anothers ownership over the property
3. Possession must have just title (concept of an owner) shall also interrupt prescription
4. Possession in good faith
Civil Interruption (for extinctive prescription)
5. Must be in made public
6. Must be uninterrupted until the time required by the law is fulfilled - Shall start from:
o Action is filed in court
Requisites of Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription o A written extra-judicial demand by the creditors has
1. Capacity to acquire by prescription been received
2. Thing must be acquirable through prescription o When a written acknowledgement of the debt by the
3. Must be in made public debtor was executed
4. Must be uninterrupted until the time required by the law is fulfilled - There is no suspension in cases of extinctive prescription
Effects of Interruption
What is Good Faith for purposes of Prescription? - When prescription is interrupted, all the benefits (WRT time)
- It consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he acquired so far from the possession ceases
received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his - When the prescription runs again, it will be entirely a new
ownership. prescriptive period (reset)
- A persons is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware
that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it
Notes:
- Good faith is presumed
_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 83 85
 XIV. Prescription || C. Prescription of Actions || When will the prescriptive period start?
Notes:

IT STARTS:
For movable property
FOR REAL/PERSONAL From the time the cause of action accrues PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
ACTIONS
ORDINARY 4 years in good faith
FOR CONTRACTS From the time of the perfection of the contract
EXTRAORDINARY 8 years
FOR POSSESSION From the first day of the open, continuous,
adverse possession
FOR JUDGEMENTS From the finality of the judgement For immovable property
FOR INJURIES From the time of the injury PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
FOR DEFAMATION AND From knowledge of such acts ORDINARY 10 years in good faith
FORCIBLE ENTRY / EXTRAORDINARY 30 years
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
FOR REGISTERED Upon the recording of a new title For Actions
LANDS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
ACTIONS FOR FRAUD Upon discovery of fraud
RIGHT OF WAY Does not prescribe
ENFORCEMENT OF From the last payment of the annuity / interest
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE Does not prescribe
OBLIGATIONS TO PAY
PRINCIPAL WITH ACTIONS OVER IMMOVABLES 30 years
INTEREST MORTGAGE ACTION 10 years
ACTIONS TO DEMAND From the day persons who should render the WRITTEN CONTRACT
10 years from the time the right of
ACCOUNTING same cease in their function OBLIGATION CREATED BY LAW
action accrues
ACTIONS ARISING From the date when said result was recognized UPON A JUDGEMENT
FROM THE RESULT OF by agreement of the interested parties RECOVERY OF MOVABLES 8 years from time possession is lost
THE ACCOUNTING
UPON AN ORAL CONTRACT
6 years
UPON A QUASI-CONTRACT
Notes: ACTIONS NOT FIXED IN THIS CODE 5 years from time the right of
- In addition to these periods, the possibility of bringing an action OR IN SPECIAL LAWS action accrues
must be also considered
UPON AN INJURY TO RIGHTS
o (e.g. The happening of a fortuitous event preventing a 4 years from time of injury
person from bringing an action to court tolls the UPON A QUASI-DELICT
prescriptive period) INJURY TO RIGHTS/QUASI-DELICT
ARISING FROM ANY ACT OF ANY 1 year from time of injury
PUBLIC OFFICER
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER
1 year
DEFAMATION

Notes:
- The first day shall be excluded and the last day included

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 84 85
 - http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/property/1752-
philippine-refining-company-v-jarque.html
- http://breakingomerta.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/bachrach-
motor-vs-ledesma/
- Civil Code of the Philippines, 1950
- Reyes, Jose B. L., and Ricardo C. Puno. 1958. An Outline of Philippine
Civil Law. Quezon City: Central Book Supply, Inc.
- Tolentino, Arturo M. 1990. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Civil Code of the Philippines. Manila: Central Book Supply, Inc.
- Paras, Edgardo L. 2013. Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated.
Manila: Rex Printing Company, Inc.
- A2016 Digests and Notes

- Entries made in this reviewer were made by analysing the different

commentaries (Tolentino, Paras, and Reyes) + some of the authors
understanding of the topics.
- If you spot any errors on this reviewer, then good for you! It means
you really know your Property Concepts! But please help me
improve this reviewer by emailing your suggestions/comments at
Jocel.dilag@yahoo.com
- The creation of this reviewer never intended to defraud, injure, or
plagiarize anyone.

Special thanks to:

Apo Espaola, Michael De Castro, Laurie Quiambao, Carlos Marin and
Jechel Tan De Guzman for the Mini-Digests
Norly Bayona for the special notes
Apo Espaola for the easement illustrations
Block A2016 for the notes and digests

Carlos Poblador & Laurie Quiambao for being amazing copyreaders :))

_______________________________________________________________
PROPERTY Reviewer || Prof. J. Cruz-Regalado 85 85