!"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. !"#$ &'()$ *+',- .",(# /$)012"('3143,(5'6$ 4"7"3 8"9:')) 7; !"#('))3 !"#"$% '( )*+, -./01/2( 34 A lessee placeu machineiy in a builuing eiecteu on lanu belonging to anothei, with the unueistanuing that the machineiy was not incluueu in the impiovements which woulu pass on the lessoi on the expiiation of the lease. Lessee also tieateu the machineiy as peisonal piopeity by executing chattel moitgages in favoi of S iu peisons The machineiy unit must be classifieu as a peisonal piopeity. Nachineiy which is movable in its natuie becomes immobilizeu when placeu in a plant <= (>$ 396$5 3? (>$ @53@$5(= 35 @)"6(A <+( 63( 9>$6 @)",$0 <= " ($6"6(A " +#+?5+,(+"5=A 35 "6= @$5#36 >"7'6B 36)= " ($:@35"5= 5'B>(A +6)$## #+,> @$5#36 ",($0 "# "6 "B$6( 3? (>$ 396$5; C$5-$6-3(($5 7; !+ D6E'$6B $ /'E3# 3"/5 +)( )*+, 67//.89:./( 34 Nabalacat Sugai Co. obtaineu fiom B a loan secuieu by a 1 st moitgage on 2 parcels of land with all its buildings, improvements, mill, steel ieailway, telephone line, appaiatus, utensils anu whatevei foims pait oi is a necessary complement of said [] 35 (>"( :"= '6 (>$ ?+(+5$ $F'#( '6 #"'0 )3(#; Aftei some months, NSC bought auuitional machineiy anu equipment to inciease its capacity. Petitioner advanced the amount for the addtl equipment, with promise to be ieimbuiseu. The installation of a machineiy anu equipment in a moitgageu sugai cential constitutes a peimanent impiovement, which subjects saiu machineiy anu equipment to the moitgage constituteu theieon.
G3@$H 7; I53#"A J5; "60 K)"H" &>$"(5$A L6,; ;:<=".=5 >?( )*,? ;:/7@( 34 0iosa pioposeu to Lopez to invest in a theatie business, which woulu be eiected on Os land. Lopez refused, but agreed to supply the lumber necessaiy foi the constiuction. Payment, as agieeu, woulu be upon uemanu anu not C0B. Lopez was paiu only a poition of the amount. As Lopez was uemanuing payment, 0 obtaineu a bank loan by moitgaging the theatie to pay foi the balance uue L. Bowevei, the theatei was alieauy moitgageu to PNB Appellants contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of the mateiials useu foi the constiuction, iepaii oi iefection of a builuing is also extenueu to lanu on which it was constiucteu '# 9'(>3+( :$5'(A because while it is tiue geneially that ieal estate connotes the lanu anu the builuing constiucteu theieon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the builuing, sepaiate anu uistinct fiom the lanu, in the enumeiation of what constitutes ieal piopeity, coulu mean only one thing: (>"( " <+')0'6B '# <= '(#$)? "6 '::37"<)$ @53@$5(= M##3,'"($0 L6#; N 8+5$(= !3; 7; L=" -.5 +A( )*,? ;:/7@( 34 Sps. valino owneu anu possesseu a house of stiong mateiials In uiace Paik Subu, Caloocan, which they puichaseu on installment fiom PRC. Wife puichaseu iice with AISC as suiety, anu as countei-guaianty, executeu a chattel moitgage on theii house. At that time, the lanu was still in PRCs name. Aftei completion of payment of purchase price, TCT in Valinos name was secuieu. Then, to secuie an inuebteuness, executeu a REN ovei the lot anu house in favoi of Iya. A builuing is an immovable piopeity iiiespective of whethei oi not saiu stiuctuie anu the lanu on which it is auheieu to belong to the same ownei. It cannot be uivesteu of its chaiactei of a iealty by the fact that the lanu on which it was constiucteu belongs to anothei. As peisonal piopeities coulu only be the subject of a chattel moitgage, the execution of a CN on a builuing is invaliu anu a nullity, the iegistiation of the chattel notwithstanuing. &+:")"0 7; O',$6,'3 vicencio anu Simeon executeu a chattel moitgage in favoi of the Tumalaus ovei theii house of stiong mateiials locateu at SSu Int. S, Quezon Boulevaiu, Quiapo, Nanila, ovei Lot 6-B anu 7-B, Block 2SS4, which weie being ienteu fiom Nauiigal & Company, Inc. When vicencio anu Simeon uefaulteu in paying, the moitgage was extiajuuicially foiecloseu, anu on 27 Naich 19S6, the house was solu at public auction puisuant to the saiu contiact. As highest biuuei, the Tumalaus weie issueu the coiiesponuing ceitificate of sale. 0n 18 Apiil 19S6, the Tumalaus commenceu Civil Case 4Su7S in the municipal couit of Nanila, piaying, among othei things, that the house Ceitain ueviations fiom the iule in Lopez anu Iya, howevei, have been alloweu foi vaiious ieasons. Bence, if a house belonging to a peison stanus on a ienteu lanu belonging to anothei peison, it may be moitgageu as a peisonal piopeity as so stipulateu in the uocument of moitgage. It shoulu be noteu, howevei that the piinciple is pieuicateu on statements by the ownei ueclaiing his house to be a chattel, a conuuct that may conceivably estop him fiom subsequently claiming otheiwise.
0nlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. 0iosa, }i. anu Plaza Theatieanu Leung Yee vs. F. L. Stiong Nachineiy anu Williamson, wheiein thiiu peisons assaileu the valiuity of the chattel moitgage, it is the uefenuants- appellants themselves, as uebtois-moitgagois, who aie attacking the 2 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. be vacateu anu its possession suiienueieu to them, anu foi vicencio anu Simeon to pay ient of P2uu.uu monthly fiom 27 Naich 19S6 up to the time the possession is suiienueieu. NC iuleu in favoi of Tumalau Neaily a yeai aftei the foieclosuie sale the moitgageu house hau been uemolisheu on 14 anu 1S }anuaiy 19S7 by viitue of a uecision obtaineu by the lessoi of the lanu on which the house stoou. valiuity of the chattel moitgage in this case. The uoctiine of estoppel theiefoie applies to the heiein uefenuants-appellants, having tieateu the subject house as peisonalty. P"-"(' G$"#'6B "60 .'6"6,$ !35@ 7; Q$"5$7$5 &$F(')$ P'))#A L6,; -.5 )B( )*?+ C: D.$%=1( 34 To be able to secuie financial accommouations fiom the petitionei, the piivate iesponuent uiscounteu anu assigneu seveial ieceivables unuei a Receivable Puichase Agieement. &3 #$,+5$ (>$ ,3))$,('36 3? (>$ 5$,$'7"<)$#A " ,>"(($) :35(B"B$ 9"# $F$,+($0 37$5 :",>'6$5= ?3+60 '6 (>$ ?",(35= 3? (>$ @5'7"($ 5$#@360$6(.
As the piivate iesponuent faileu to pay, the moitgage was extiajuuicially foiecloseu. Nonetheless, the sheiiff was unable to seize the machineiy. This piompteu petitionei to file an action foi ieplevin. The CA ieveiseu the uecision of the tiial couit anu oiueieu the ietuin of the uiive motoi, aftei iuling that the machineiy may not be the subject of a chattel moitgage, given that it was an immovable unuei the piovisions of Aiticle 41S. The same was attacheu to the giounu by means of bolts anu the only way to iemove it fiom the plant woulu be to uiill the giounu. Theie is no logical justification to excluue the iule out that the machineiy may be consiueieu as peisonal piopeity, anu subject to a chattel moitgage. If a house may be consiueieu as peisonal piopeity foi puiposes of executing a chattel moitgage, what moie a machineiy, which is movable by natuie anu becomes immobilizeu only by uestination oi puipose, may not be likewise tieateu as such.
Tumalau uoctiine applies. C3"50 3? M##$##:$6( M@@$")# 7; P"6')" R)$,(5', !3; 3.E".=5 +)( )*BF4 G.=:H:$( 34 The Philippine Commission enacteu Act No. 484 which authoiizeu the Nunicipal Boaiu of Nanila to giant a fianchise to constiuct, maintain anu opeiate an electiic stieet iailway anu electiic light, heat anu powei system in the City of Nanila.
Neialco's electiic powei is geneiateu by its hyuio-electiic plant locateu at Botocan Falls, Laguna anu is tiansmitteu to the City of Nanila by means of electiic tiansmission wiies, iunning fiom the piovince of Laguna to the saiu City.
These electiic tiansmission wiies which caiiy high voltage cuiient, aie fasteneu to insulatois attacheu on steel toweis constiucteu by iesponuent at inteivals, fiom its hyuioelectiic plant in the piovince of Laguna to the City of Nanila. The iesponuent Neialco has constiucteu 4u of these steel toweis within Quezon City, on lanu belonging to it.
The City Assessoi of Quezon City ueclaieu the afoiesaiu steel toweis foi ieal piopeity tax unuei Tax. The SC iuleu that Neialco's steel toweis weie consiueieu poles within the meaning of paiagiaph 9 of its fianchise which exempts its poles fiom taxation. The steel toweis weie consiueieu peisonality because they weie iemovable anu meiely attacheu to squaie metal fiames by means of bolts anu coulu be moveu fiom place to place when unscieweu anu uismantleu. Fuitheimoie, they aie not attacheu to an immovable in a fixeu mannei, anu they can be sepaiateu without bieaking the mateiial oi causing ueteiioiation upon the object to which they aie attacheu. S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. P$5"),3 8$,+5'('$# L60+#(5'") !35@35"('36 7; !CMM -.5 +)( )*?>4 !I"7E1( 34 Puisuant to a pipeline concession issueu unuei the Petioleum Act of 1949, Republic Act No. S87, Neialco Secuiities installeu fiom Batangas to Nanila a pipeline system consisting of cylinuiical steel pipes joineu togethei anu buiieu not less than one metei below the suiface along the shouluei of the public highway. The pipes aie embeuueu in the soil while the valves aie welueu to the pipes so as to make the pipeline system one single piece of piopeity fiom enu to enu. Puisuant to the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 47u, the piovincial assessoi of Laguna tieateu the pipeline as ieal piopeity anu issueu Tax Beclaiations. The Couit oiueieu that CBAA uiu not with giave abuse anu uiscietion anu acteu within its juiisuiction in sustaining the holuing of the piovincial assessoi that Neialco Secuiities Pipeline System in Laguna is subject to a iealty tax foi the following ieasons that the pipes aie machineiy oi impiovements anu iegaiueu as iealty because they aie constiuctions auheieu to the soil. It is attacheu to the lanu in such a way that it cannot be sepaiateu theiefiom without uismantling the steel pipes which aie welueu to the pipeline. In so fai as the pipeline uses valves, pumps anu contiol uevices to maintain the flow of the oil, it is in a sense a machineiy within the meaning of the Real Piopeity Tax Coue. P$5"),3 7; !CMM -.5 +)( )*?> !I"7E1( 34 This case is about the imposition of the iealty tax on two oil stoiage tanks installeu in 1969 by Nanila Electiic Company on a lot in San Pascual, Batangas which it leaseu in 1968 fiom Caltex (Phil.), Inc. The stoiage tanks aie maue of steel plates welueu anu assembleu on the spot. Theii bottoms iest on a founuation consisting of compacteu eaith as the outeimost layei. The tank is not attacheu to its founuation. It is not anchoieu oi welueu to the conciete ciiculai wall. Its bottom plate is not attacheu to any pait of the founuation by bolts, sciews oi similai uevices. The tank meiely sits on its founuation. Pipelines weie installeu on the siues of each tank anu aie connecteu to the pipelines of the Nanila Enteipiises Inuustiial Coipoiation. The Boaiu concluues that while the tanks iest oi sit on theii founuation, the founuation itself anu the walls, uikes anu steps, which aie integial paits of the tanks, aie affixeu to the lanu while the pipelines aie attacheu to the tanks anu iequiieu Neialco to pay iealty taxes on the two tanks. The SC iuleu that while the two stoiage tanks aie not embeuueu in the lanu, they may, neveitheless, be consiueieu as impiovements on the lanu, enhancing its utility anu ienueiing it useful to the oil inuustiy. It is unueniable that the two tanks have been installeu with some uegiee of peimanence as ieceptacles foi the consiueiable quantities of oil neeueu by Neialco foi its opeiations.
Thus, the two tanks shoulu be helu subject to iealty tax because they weie consiueieu ieal piopeity. !")($F SK>');TA L6,; 7; !CMM -.5 +)( )*?> !I"7E1( 34 This case is about the iealty tax on machineiy anu equipment installeu by Caltex (Philippines) Inc. in its gas stations locateu on leaseu lanu. The machines anu equipment consists of unueigiounu tanks, elevateu tank, elevateu watei tanks, watei tanks, gasoline pumps, computing pumps, watei pumps, cai washei, cai hoists, tiuck hoists, aii compiessois anu tiieflatois. The builuing oi sheu, the elevateu watei tank, the cai hoist unuei a sepaiate sheu, the aii compiessoi, the unueigiounu gasoline tank, neon lights signboaiu, conciete fence anu pavement anu the lot wheie they aie all placeu oi eiecteu, all of them useu in the puisuance of the gasoline seivice station business foimeu the entiie gasoline seivice-station. The lessoi of the lanu, wheie the gas station is locateu, uoes not become The Assessment Law pioviues that the iealty tax is uue "on ieal piopeity, incluuing lanu, builuings, machineiy, anu othei impiovements". SC holu that the saiu equipment anu machineiy, as appuitenances to the gas station builuing oi sheu owneu by Caltex (as to which it is subject to iealty tax) anu which fixtuies aie necessaiy to the opeiation of the gas station, foi without them the gas station woulu be useless, anu which have been attacheu oi affixeu peimanently to the gas station site oi embeuueu theiein, aie taxable impiovements anu machineiy within the meaning of the Assessment Law anu the Real Piopeity Tax Coue. 4 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. the ownei of the machines anu equipment installeu theiein. Caltex ietains the owneiship theieof uuiing the teim of the lease. C$6B+$( !35@; 7; !CMM 3.E".=5 >*( )**+ D="J( 34 Benguet Piovincial Assessoi: Assesseu ieal piopeity tax on the bunkhouses of petitionei Benguet Coipoiation occupieu foi iesiuential puiposes by its iank anu file employees unuei Tax Beclaiation Nos. 8471 (198S) anu 1u4S4 (1986). The tax exemptions of bunkhouses unuei Sec. S of PB 74S was withuiawn by PB 19SS. Benguet Coip.: Appealeu the uecision to the LBAA of Benguet. CBAA: helu that the blugs of petitionei useu as uwellings weie exempt fiom ieal piopeity tax puisuant to PB 74S. LBAA: affiimeu taxability of the bunkhouses. 0n appeal, CBAA helu the exemption was withuiawn so petitionei shoulu have applieu foi iestoiation of the exemption with the Fiscal Incentives Review Boaiu. Benguet: LGUs dont have any authority to levy realty taxes on mines puisuant to Sec. S2 of PB 46S anu Sec. S (m) of the Local Tax Coue. Sol uen: Benguet is estoppeu fiom iaising the question of lack of authoiity as it was nevei iaiseu befoie. (1) The provisions of Sec. 52 of the Mineral Resources Devt Decree of 1974 (PB 46S) anu Sec. S (m) of the Local Tax Coue aie meie limitations on the taxing powei of Lu0s; they aie not peitinent to the issue befoie the SC. They cannot affect the imposition of the ieal piopeity tax by the national goveinment. Although Lu0s aie chaigeu with fixing the iates of ieal piopeity tax, it uoes not follow that they also have the authoiity to ueteimine W0N they can impose the tax. It is the national goveinment that levies ieal piopeity tax. When Lu0s aie iequiieu to fix the iates, they aie meiely constituteu as agents of the national goveinment in the enfoicement of the ieal piopeity tax coue. The uelegation of taxing powei is not even involveu since the tax has alieauy been imposeu anu the Lu0s aie just manuateu to enfoice it. If the SC weie to sanction the inteipietation of Benguet, then necessaiily all ieal piopeities exempt by any law woulu be coveieu, anu theie woulu be no need for congress to specify Real Property Tax Code, as amended instead of stating clearly realty tax exemption laws. The intention is to limit the application of the exception clause only to those given by the Real Piopeity Tax Coue. La Bugal Blaa6 &5'<") M##3,'"('36A L6,; 7; 2":3#
The Petition foi Piohibition anu Nanuamus befoie the Couit challenges the constitutionality of (1) Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Nining Act of 199S); (2) its Implementing Rules anu Regulations (BENR Auministiative 0iuei |BA0j 96-4u); anu (S) the Financial anu Technical Assistance Agieement (FTAA) uateu Su Naich 199S, executeu by the goveinment with Westein Nining Coipoiation (Philippines), Inc. (WNCP). 0n 27 }anuaiy 2uu4, the Couit en banc piomulgateu its Becision, gianting the Petition anu ueclaiing the unconstitutionality of ceitain piovisions of RA 7942, BA0 96-4u, as well as of the entiie FTAA executeu between the goveinment anu WNCP, mainly on the finuing that FTAAs aie seivice contiacts piohibiteu by the 1987 Constitution. The Becision stiuck uown the subject FTAA foi being similai to seivice contiacts,|9j which, though peimitteu unuei the 197S Constitution, weie subsequently uenounceu foi being antithetical to the piinciple of soveieignty ovei oui natuial iesouices, because they alloweu foieign contiol ovei the exploitation of oui natuial iesouices, to the piejuuice of the Filipino nation. The Becision quoteu seveial legal scholais anu authois who hau ciiticizeu seivice contiacts foi, intei alia, vesting in the foieign contiactoi exclusive management anu contiol of the enteipiise, incluuing opeiation of the fielu in the event petioleum was uiscoveieu; contiol of piouuction, expansion anu uevelopment; neaily unfetteieu contiol ovei the uisposition anu sale of the piouucts uiscoveieuextiacteu; effective owneiship of the natuial iesouice at the point of extiaction; anu beneficial owneiship of oui economic iesouices. The Chief Executive is the official constitutionally mandated to enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations. On the other hand, Congiess may ieview the action of the Piesiuent once it is notifieu of every contract entered into in accordance with this |constitutionalj provision within thirty days from its execution. In contrast to this expiess manuate of the Piesiuent anu Congiess in the exploiation, uevelopment anu utilization (EB0) of natuial iesouices, Aiticle XII of the Constitution is silent on the iole of the juuiciaiy. Bowevei, shoulu the Piesiuent anuoi Congiess giavely abuse theii uiscietion in this iegaiu, the couits may -- in a piopei case -- exeicise theii iesiuual uuty unuei Aiticle vIII. Cleaily then, the juuiciaiy shoulu not inoiuinately inteifeie in the exeicise of this piesiuential powei of contiol ovei the EB0 of oui natuial iesouices. 0nuei the uoctiine of sepaiation of poweis anu uue iespect foi co-equal anu cooiuinate bianches of goveinment, the Couit must iestiain itself fiom intiuuing into policy matteis anu must allow the Piesiuent anu Congiess maximum uiscietion in using the iesouices of oui countiy anu in secuiing the assistance of foieign gioups to eiauicate the giinuing poveity of oui people anu answei theii ciy foi viable employment opportunities in the country. The judiciary is loath to interfere with the uue exeicise by coequal bianches of goveinment of theii official functions. As aptly spelled out seven decades ago by Justice George S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. Accoiuing to the Becision, the 1987 Constitution (Section 2 of Aiticle XII) effectively banneu such seivice contiacts. Subsequently, victoi 0. Ramos (Secietaiy, Bepaitment of Enviionment anu Natuial Resouices |BENRj), Boiacio Ramos (Biiectoi, Nines anu ueosciences Buieau |NuB-BENRj), Ruben Toiies (Executive Secietaiy), anu the WNC (Philippines) Inc. fileu sepaiate Notions foi Reconsiueiation. Malcolm, Just as the Supreme Couit, as the guaiuian of constitutional iights, shoulu not sanction usuipations by any othei uepaitment of goveinment, so shoulu it as stiictly confine its own spheie of influence to the poweis expiessly oi by implication confeiieu on it by the 0iganic Act. Let the development of the mining industry be the responsibility of the political bianches of goveinment. Anu let not the Couit inteifeie inoiuinately anu unnecessaiily. The Constitution of the Philippines is the supieme law of the lanu. It is the iepositoiy of all the aspiiations anu hopes of all the people. The Constitution shoulu be ieau in bioau, life-giving stiokes. It shoulu not be useu to stiangulate economic giowth oi to seive naiiow, paiochial inteiests. Rathei, it shoulu be constiueu to giant the Piesiuent anu Congiess sufficient uiscietion anu ieasonable leeway to enable them to attiact foieign investments anu expeitise, as well as to secuie foi oui people anu oui posteiity the blessings of piospeiity anu peace. The Couit fully sympathize with the plight of La Bugal Blaan and other tiibal gioups, anu commenu theii effoits to uplift theii communities. Bowevei, the Couit cannot justify the invaliuation of an otheiwise constitutional statute along with its implementing iules, oi the nullification of an otheiwise legal anu binuing FTAA contiact. The Couit believes that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wiue uegiee of uiscietion to the Chief Executive, given the natuie anu complexity of such agieements, the humongous amounts of capital anu financing iequiieu foi laige-scale mining opeiations, the complicateu technology neeueu, anu the intiicacies of inteinational tiaue, coupleu with the States need to maintain flexibility in its dealings, in order to preserve and enhance our countrys competitiveness in woilu maikets. 0n the basis of this contiol stanuaiu, the Couit upholus the constitutionality of the Philippine Nining Law, its Implementing Rules anu Regulations -- insofai as they ielate to financial anu technical agieements -- as well as the subject Financial anu Technical Assistance Agieement (FTAA).
!>"7$H 7; KRM This petition askeu the Couit to legitimize a goveinment contiact that conveyeu to a piivate entity 1S7.84 hectaies of ieclaimeu public lanus along Roxas Boulevaiu in Netio Nanila at the negotiateu piice of P1,2uu pei squaie metei. Bowevei, publisheu iepoits place the maiket piice of lanu neai that aiea at that time at a high of P9u,uuu pei squaie metei. The uiffeience in piice is a staggeiing P14u.16 billion, equivalent to the buuget of the entiie }uuiciaiy foi seventeen yeais anu moie than thiee times the Naicos Swiss ueposits that this Couit foifeiteu in favoi of the goveinment. Public Estates Authoiity (PEA), unuei the }vA, obligateu itself to convey Submeigeu lanus, like the wateis (sea oi bay) above them, aie pait of the States inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property of public uominion, absolutely inalienable anu outsiue the commeice of man. This is also tiue with iespect to foieshoie lanus. Any sale of submeigeu oi foieshoie lanus is voiu being contiaiy to the Constitution as it violates Section 2, Aiticle XII. In the instant case, the bulk of the lanus subject of the Amenueu }vA aie still submeigeu lanus even to this veiy uay, anu theiefoie inalienable anu outsiue the commeice of man. 0f the 7Su hectaies subject of the Amenueu }vA, S92.1S hectaies oi 78% of the total aiea aie still submeigeu, peimanently unuei the wateis of 6 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. title anu possession ovei the Piopeity, consisting of appioximately 0ne Nillion Five Bunuieu Seventy Eight Thousanu Foui Bunuieu Foity 0ne (1,S78,441) Squaie Neteis foi a total consiueiation of 0ne Billion Eight Bunuieu Ninety Foui Nillion 0ne Bunuieu Twenty Nine Thousanu Two Bunuieu (P1,894,129,2uu.uu) Pesos, oi a piice of 0ne Thousanu Two Bunuieu (P1,2uu.uu) Pesos pei squaie metei. Nanila Bay. 0nuei the Amenueu }vA, the PEA conveyeu to Amaii the submeigeu lanus even befoie theii actual ieclamation, although the uocumentation of the ueeu of tiansfei anu issuance of the ceitificates of title woulu be maue only aftei actual ieclamation. This Resolution uoes not piejuuice any innocent thiiu paity puichasei of the ieclaimeu lanus coveieu by the Amenueu }vA. Neithei the PEA noi Amaii has solu any poition of the ieclaimeu lanus to thiiu paities. Title to the ieclaimeu lanus iemains with the PEA. As helu in the 9 }uly 2uu2 Becision, the Amenueu }vA "violates glaiingly Sections 2 anu S, Aiticle XII of the 1987 Constitution. D#$53 7; !M Responuents builu a conciete fence between theii piopeity anu the piopeity of the petitioneis. Petitioneis assaileu the builuing of the saiu fence on the giounu that the piopeity was theiis.
The meie fact that theie aie watei lilies on the space filleu with watei pioves that theie is a peimanent stieam of watei oi a cieek theie. The petitioneis also faileu to piove theii claim of owneiship. Ait.42u The phiase "otheis of similai chaiactei" incluues a cieek which is a iecess oi an aim of a iivei. It is piopeity belonging to the public uomain which is not susceptible to piivate owneiship. Being public watei, a cieek cannot be iegisteieu unuei the Toiiens System in the name of any inuiviuual. Accoiuingly, the petitioneis may utilize the iip-iappeu poition of the cieek to pievent the eiosion of theii piopeity.
O'+0" 0$ &"6 &3,3 7; P+6','@") !3+6,') 3? L)3')3 -.=0K >,( )*>B 67//.21=( 34 Nunicipal council of Iloilo faileu to pay Tantoco the puichase piice of 2 stiips of lanu, which it appiopiiateu foi ioau wiuening. By viitue of a wiit of execution, the sheiiff attached two autotrucks used for street spiinkling, one police patiol automobile, the police stations on Nabini St., anu othei stiuctuies, plus the maiket The piopeity of a municipality, whethei ieal oi peisonal, necessaiy foi goveinmental puiposes cannot be attacheu anu solu at a public auction to satisfy a juugment against the municipality K537'6,$ 3? U":<3"6B" 0$) V35($ 7; !'(= 3? U":<3"6B" -.=0K >?( )?B? L:E#J1E( 34G4( 34 RA S9 conveiteu municipality of Zamboanga to a city, anu pioviueu that blugs. Anu piopeities abanuoneu shall be paiu foi by the City at a piice fixeu by the Au (PhP 1,294,244)
RA 711: uel Noiteuel Sui funus, assets, anu othei piopeities shall be uiviueu equitable between the 2. Au appoitioneu assets: S4.S9% to Noite, 4S.61% to Sui
ExecSec then issueu a iuling holuing that Noite hau a vesteu iight as ownei of the piopeities given to the City anu is entitleu to the piice theieof, payable by Zamboanga City. Finance Sec authoiizeu CIR to deduct 25% from Citys IRA to be credited to Noite.
RASuS9 all blugs, etc, belonging to the foimei piovince anu locateu within the City, fiee of chaige, in favoi of the City. valiuity of the law ultimately uepenus on the natuie of the Su lots anu blugs theieon If the piopeity is owneu by the municipality in its public anu goveinmental capacity, the piopeity is public anu Congiess has absolute contiol ovei it. But if the piopeity is owneu in its piivate oi piopiietaiy capacity, then it is patiimonial anu Congiess has no absolute contiol. The capacity in which the piopeity is helu is uepenuent on the use which it is intenueu anu uevoteu. 8")"# 7; J"5$6,'3 !"#"$% +A( )*'> M$#":==.( 34 0n Septembei 21, 196u, the Nunicipal Boaiu of Nanila, piesiueu by then vice-Nayoi Antonio }. villegas, auopteu a iesolution iequesting the Piesiuent of the Philippines (3 ,36#'0$5 (>$ ?$"#'<')'(= 3? 0$,)"5'6B In the absence of a ueeu oi title to any lanu claimeu by the City as its own, showing that it was acquiieu with its piivate oi coipoiate funus, the piesumption is that such lanu came fiom the State upon the cieation 7 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. (>$ !'(= @53@$5(= <3+60$0 <= .)35'0"A 8"6 M605$#A "60 V$<5"#-" 8(5$$(# ,36("'6'6B " (3(") "5$" 3? WAXYZ #[+"5$ :$($5# "# " @"(5':36'") @53@$5(= 3? (>$ !'(= 3? P"6')" ?35 (>$ @+5@3#$ 3? 5$#$))'6B (>$#$ )3(# (3 (>$ ",(+") 3,,+@"6(# (>$5$3?; RA 4118 was passeu which subuiviueu saiu lot foi iesale by the Lanu Authoiity to bona fiue applicants. - The City of Nanila maue a complete tuin-about. The City Nayoi of Nanila anu the City of Nanila as a uuly oiganizeu public coipoiation biought an action foi injunction anuoi piohibition with pieliminaiy injunction to iestiain, piohibit anu enjoin the heiein appellants, paiticulaily the uoveinoi of the Lanu Authoiity anu the Registei of Beeus of Nanila, fiom fuithei implementing RA 4118, anu piaying foi the ueclaiation of RA 4118 as unconstitutional. of the municipality. Such piopeity is helu in tiust foi the benefit of its inhabitants, whethei it be foi goveinmental oi piopiietaiy puipose. RA 4118 was nevei intenueu to expiopiiate the piopeity involveu but :$5$)= (3 ,36?'5: '(# ,>"5",($5 "# ,3::+6") )"60 3? (>$ 8("($ "60 (3 :"-$ '( "7"')"<)$ ?35 0'#@3#'('36 <= (>$ V"('36") \37$56:$6(; It was enacteu upon foimal wiitten petition of the Nunicipal Boaiu of Nanila in the foim of a legally appioveu iesolution. The foiegoing sequence of events cleaily inuicates a pattein of iegulaiity anu obseivance of uue piocess in the ieveision of the piopeity to the National uoveinment. All such acts weie uone in iecognition by the City of Nanila of the iight anu powei of the Congiess to uispose of the lanu involveu. Consequently, the City of Nanila was not uepiiveu of anything it owns, eithei unuei the uue piocess clause oi unuei the eminent uomain piovisions of the Constitution. If it faileu to get fiom the Congiess the concession it sought of having the lanu involveu given to it as its patiimonial piopeity, the Couits possess no powei to giant that ielief. !$<+ IF=B$6 N M,=($)$6$ !3; 7; C$5,'))$# !"#"$% >*( )*', D1E0:N071E( 3=4 34 The lanu sought to be iegisteieu in this case was foimeily a pait of a stieet. Thiough a iesolution, it was ueclaieu to be an abanuoneu ioau anu not pait of the City uevelopment plan. Theieaftei, it was solu thiough a public biuuing anu petitionei was the highest biuuei. Be then sought to iegistei saiu lanu but his application was uismisseu. The poition of the city stieet subject to petitioners application foi iegistiation of title was withuiawn fiom public use. Then it follows that such withuiawn poition becomes patiimonial piopeity of the State. It is also veiy cleai fiom the Chaitei that piopeity thus withuiawn fiom public seivituue may be useu oi conveyeu foi any puipose foi which othei ieal piopeity belonging to the City may be lawfully useu oi conveyeu. P+6','@")'(= 3? 8"6 P'B+$)A C+)","6 7; .$56"60$H 3"E: >,( )*?F 9:/1O.( 34 In a civil case, petitionei was helu liable to piivate iesponuents. Alias wiit of execution was gianteu on the funus of the municipality in the hanus of the tieasuieis. Well settleu is the iule that public funus aie not subject to levy anu execution. A coiiesponuing appiopiiation in the foim of an oiuinance by the SB is neeueu befoie any money of the municipality may be paiu out. \37$56:$6( 3? (>$ K>'); L#)"60# 7; !"<"6B'# -.=0K >'( )*>* 67//.8=:./ 34 Lots S6, S9 anu 4u, block SuSS of cauastial pioceeuing 71 of the City of Nanila, uLR0. Recoiu S7S, weie foimeily a pait of a laige paicel of lanu belonging to the pieuecessoi of Cabangis. Fiom the yeai 1896 saiu lanu began to weai away, uue to the action of the waves of Nanila Bay, until the yeai 19u1 when the saiu lots became completely submeigeu in watei in oiuinaiy tiues, anu iemaineu in such a state until 1912 when the uoveinment unueitook the uieuging of vitas Estuaiy in oiuei to facilitate navigation, uepositing all the sanu anu silt taken fiom the beu of the estuaiy on the low lanus which weie completely coveieu with watei, suiiounuing that belonging to the Philippine Nanufactuiing Company, theieby slowly anu giauually foiming the lots, the subject mattei of the pioceeuing. 0p to the month of Febiuaiy 1927 nobouy hau ueclaieu lot S9 foi the puiposes of taxation, anu it was only in the yeai 1926 that Bi. Peuio uil, in behalf of Cabangis, ueclaieu lot 4u foi such puipose. Aiticle S of the Law of Wateis of 1866 pioviues that lands reclaimed fiom the sea in consequence of woiks constiucteu by the State, oi by the piovinces, pueblos, oi piivate peisons, with piopei peimission, shall become the piopeity of the paity constiucting such woiks, unless otheiwise pioviueu by the teims of the giant of authoiity." The fact that fiom 1912 some fisheimen hau been uiying theii fishing nets anu uepositing theii bancas on lots S6, S9 anu 4u, by peimission of Tomas Cabangis, uoes not confei on the lattei oi his successois the owneiship of saiu lots, because, as they weie conveiteu into public lanu, no piivate peison coulu acquiie title theieto except in the foim anu mannei establisheu by the law. /')"5'3 7; 8")7"035 Defendant allegedly constructed a house on the plaintiffs land. An accion ieinvinuicatoiia is a suit which has foi its object the iecoveiy 8 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. !N=7/ >*( >AA, D.//:P1( Q=4 34 Befenuant iefuseu to vacate the piopeity in Romblon, Romblon. of possession ovei the ieal piopeity as ownei while an accion publiciana is one foi the iecoveiy of possession of the iight to possess it is also iefeiieu to as an ejectment suit fileu aftei the expiiation of one yeai aftei the occuiience of the cause of action oi fiom the unlawful withholuing of possession of the iealty. L6 (>'# ,"#$A '( 9"# "6 ",,'36 @+<)','"6"; &>$ ",('36 3? (>$ @$('('36$5# 03$# 63( '673)7$ " ,)"': 3? 396$5#>'@ 37$5 (>$ @53@$5(=; &>$= "))$B$0 (>"( (>$= "5$ ,3]396$5# (>$5$3?A "60 "5$ $6('()$0 (3 @3##$##'36; 8":@"="6 7; !M 3.E".=5 )F( >AA, R.=07.( 34 vasquez siblings fileu a complaint foi foicible entiy against Sampayan foi allegeuly having enteieu anu occupieu a paicel of lanu anu built a house theieon without theii knowleuge, consent oi authoiity, the entiy having been supposeuly effecteu thiough stiategy anu stealth. The lot was allegedly owned and possessed by the Vasquezs deceased mother |Ciistita Quitaj. Bayugan anu Sibagat, Agusan uel Sui !"#$"%"&: Naiia Ybanez, the oveiseei of Sps. Teiiauo [lots true owneisj, gave him peimission to entei subject lot. In an action foi foicible entiy, the plaintiff must piove that he was in piioi possession of the lanu oi builuing anu that he was uepiiveu theieof by means, foice, intimiuation, thieat, stiategy oi stealth. 8"6(3# 7; M=36 -.5 B( >AA, Q.EH1O./8R"%7:==:J( 34 Bavao City: Ruben Santos fileu a complaint foi illegal uetainei against sps. Ayon. Santos is the iegisteieu ownei of S lots situateu at Lanzona Subu, Ayons aie iegisteieu owneis of aujacent lanu. Pievious occupant of the piopeity built a builuing which stiauuleu both the lots. Ayons using the builuing as a waiehouse. Santos infoimeu iesponuents that the builuing occupies poition of his lot, but he let them use it. A complaint foi unlawful uetainei is sufficient if it alleges that the withholuing of the possession oi the iefusal to vacate is unlawful without necessaiily employing the teiminology of the law. Possession by toleiance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when the possessoi by toleiance iefuses tp vacate upon uemanu maue by the ownei. \"6')" 7; !M 3"E: >?( >AA, S"$7"2<7E#( 34 violeta Beiieia fileu 21 ejectment complaints befoie NCTC (}oiuan, uuimaias). B allegeu that she owns the lot (inheiiteu fiom paients) anu that she only toleiateu petitioneis to constiuct houses theiein. When she uemanueu that they leave, they iefuseu. In unlawful uetainei, piioi physical possession by the plaintiff is not necessaiy it is enough that plaintiff has a bettei iight oi possession; in foicible entiy, uefenuants, by foice intimiuation, thieat, stiategy oi stealth, uepiive the plaintiff oi the piioi physical possessoi of possession. What ieally uistinguishes an action foi unlawful uetainei fiom an accion publiciana anu fiom an accion ieinvinuicatoiia is that 0B is limiteu to the question of possession ue facto. A 0B suit togethei with foicible entiy aie the 2 foims of an ejectment suit that may be fileu to iecovei possession of ieal piopeity 23## 2'," 8")$# !$6($5 7; I6B !"#"$% )B( >AA, T7E#.( 34 Petitioneis bought lanu fiom Nanuaue Piime, which bought the same fiom iesponuent 0ng. MTC granted petitioners ejectment suit and ordered respondent to vacate the piemises. The phrase unlawful withholding has been held to imply possession on the pait of uefenuant, which was legal in the beginning, having no othei souice than a contiact, expiess oi implieu, anu which latei expiieu as a iight anu is being withhelu by uefenuant. The issue involveu in accion ieivinuicatoiia is the iecoveiy of owneiship of ieal piopeity. This uiffeis fiom accion publiciana wheie the issuie is the bettei iight of possession |possession ue juiej, anu accion inteiuictal wheie the issue is mateiial possession |possession ue factoj. In an action foi unlawful uetainei, the question of possession is piimoiuial while the 9 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. issue of owneiship is geneially unessential. K$5")("]G"<5"035 7; C+"5'6 !"#"$% >,( >AA, UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34 San Felipe, Zambales Petitionei alleges that she is the ownei of a lot, having puichaseu it fiom Sps. Pionto. In 199u, BPWB constiucteu a ioau, theieby sepaiating a portion from the rest of Ps lot. Sometime in 1994, respondent Bugarin foicibly took possession of the small poition anu iefuseu to vacate the same. Thus, she instituteu a complaint foi iecoveiy of possession anu owneiship.
Responuent: Be has been in possession since 19SS. Foicible entiy is a quieting piocess, anu the iestiictive time bai is piesciibeu to complement the summaiy natuie of such piocess. Inueeu the one-yeai peiiou within which to biing an action foi foicible entiy is geneially counteu fiom the uate of actual entiy into the lanu. 8$5'^" 7; !"<"))$53 !"#"$% )'( >AAF D.//:P1 Q=4( 34 Sps Seiia fileu a complaint foi quieting of title, iecoveiy of possession anu uamages against Caballeio anu his tenants Sps. Bonela (Cagayan ue 0io City). P allegeu that they aie the absolute owneis anu have been in actual possession foi SS yeais of a paicel of lanu. Sometime in 1982, they allegeuly uiscoveieu that C was caliming owneiship ovei the lanu anu offeiing it foi sale oi moitgage. In oiuei that an action foi iecoveiy of possession may piospei, it is inuispensable that he who biings the action fully pioves not only his owneiship but also the iuentity of the piopeity claimeu, by uesciibing the location, aiea anu bounuaiies theieof. Bounuaiies set foith in complaint not the same as in the Beeu of Sale K$5$H 7; P$603H" 3"/5 >?( )*', -"V1J8G./2.( 34 Felisa Nontalbo inheiiteu lanu fiom hei fathei, which she exchangeu with that of hei aunt, Anuiea. Aftei the exchange, A uonateu half the lanu to uaughtei Naigaiita. Naigaiita anu husbanu occupieu the lanu continuously in the concept of owneis. When Nicolas sought the tiansfei of piopeity in theii names, he submitteu the ueeu of exchange. Peiezes then accuseu sps. Nicolas anu Anuiea of falsifying the ueeu of exchange Possession is an inuicium of owneiship of the thing possesseu anu to the possessoi goes the piesumption that he holus the thing unuei a claim of owneiship. Peiezes uialeu to piove owneiship of lanu. 4'H36 7; !M 3.E".=5 B( )**+4 G.H7//.( 34 ualang spouses owneu 2 lots, which they moitgageu. Theii son Bionisio ieueemeu the lot in his own name uespite that fact that the funus came fiom his S sisteis. Aftei a cauastial suivey of the lots, CFI oiueieu the issuance of 0CTs solely in Dionisios name. the heirs of Ds sisters claim that the 6 ualang siblings paititioneu the lots in an unnotaiizeu affiuavit The piopeities belongeu solely to Bionisio anu not in co-owneiship with his sisters. Dionisios ownership had been judicially confiimeu by the CGI, which involved a proceeding in rem and hence, binding on the whole world. Noieovei, the sisteis objecteu only 61 yeais aftei the issuance of the 0CT. D8 7; !"+#<= -.5 >'( )*FB C1"#/.$( 34 Thomas Lee Causby owneu a chicken faim outsiue of uieensboio, Noith Caiolina. The faim was locateu neai an aiipoit useu iegulaily by the 0niteu States militaiy. Accoiuing to Causby, noise fiom the aiipoit iegulaily fiighteneu the animals on his faim, iesulting in the ueaths of seveial chickens. The pioblem became so seveie that Causby was foiceu to abanuon his business. 0nuei an ancient uoctiine of the common law, lanu owneiship extenueu to the space above anu below the eaith. 0sing this uoctiine as a basis, Causby sueu the 0niteu States, aiguing that he owneu the aiispace above his faim. By flying planes in this aiispace, he aigueu, the goveinment hau confiscateu his piopeity without compensation, thus violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amenument. violation of the S th amenument. The Couit concluueu that the ancient common law uoctiine "has no place in the mouein woilu." }ustice Bouglas noteu that, weie the Couit to accept the uoctiine as valiu, "eveiy tianscontinental flight woulu subject the opeiatoi to countless tiespass suits. Common sense ievolts at the iuea." Bowevei, while the Couit iejecteu the unlimiteu ieach above anu below the eaith uesciibeu in the common law uoctiine, it also iuleu that, "if the lanuownei is to have full enjoyment of the lanu, he must have exclusive contiol of the immeuiate ieaches of the enveloping atmospheie." Without uefining a specific limit, the Couit stateu that flights ovei the lanu coulu be consiueieu a violation of the Takings Clause if they leu to "a uiiect anu immeuiate inteifeience with the enjoyment anu use of the lanu." uiven the uamage causeu by the paiticulaily low, fiequent flights ovei his faim, the Couit ueteimineu that the goveinment hau violateu 1u !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. The 0niteu States Couit of Claims accepteu Causby's aigument, anu oiueieu the goveinment to pay compensation.
Causby's iights, anu he was entitleu to compensation.
G+630 7; P$6$#$# __ K>'); _`a Plaintiffs own faimlanus situateu neai a lake. Neneses owns a fishponu anu piece of lanu between the lake anu a iivei. The plaintiffs claim the existence, in favoi of theii iice fielus, of a statutoiy easement peimitting the flow of watei ovei Neneses land. This allowed water collected upon their land and the lake to flow through Meneses land and into the river. Plaintiffs lands were flooded and their plantations destroyed. Neneses cannot block the flow of watei. Ait. SS2 (A6S7, NCC): Lowei estates must ieceive the wateis which natuially anu without inteivention of man uescenu fiom the highei estates, as well as the stone oi eaith which they caiiy with them. Neithei may the ownei of the lowei estate constiuct woiks pieventing this easement, noi one of the highei estates woiks incieasing this buiuen. In auuition, unuei the lanu of wateis, Neneses hau no iight to constiuct the woiks which blocks the passage thiough his lanu anu the outlet to the iivei. Baving uone so, to the uetiiment of the easement chaigeu on his estate, he violateu the law. C",>5",> 7; 8$'?$5( W0%1<:= )>( )*,A WJ.:%.( 34 The ueceaseu Emil Nauiice Bachiach left no foiceu heii except his wiuow Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach. In his last will anu testament maue vaiius legacies in cash anu willeu all the fiuits anu usufiuct the iemainuei of his estate (aftei payment of legacies, bequests anu gifts) to his wifes enjoyment. The will further provided that upon the death of Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach, one-half of all his estate shall be uiviueu shaie anu shaie alike by anu betweenhis legal heiis, to the exclusion of his biotheis. The estate of E. N. Bachiach, as ownei of 1u8,uuu shaies of stock of the Atok-Big Weuge Nining Co., Inc., ieceiveu fiom the lattei S4,uuu shaies iepiesenting Su% stock uiviuenu on the saiu 1u8,uuu shaies. 0n 1u }une 1948, Naiy NcBonalu Bachiach, as usufiuctuaiy oi life tenant of the estate, petitioneu the lowei couit to authoiize the Peoples Bank anu Tiust Company, as auministiatoi of the estate of E. N. Bachiach, to tiansfei to hei the saiu S4,uuu shaies of stock uiviuenu by inuoising anu ueliveiing to hei the coiiesponuing ceitificate of stock, claiming that saiu uiviuenu, although paiu out in the foim of stock, is fiuit oi income anu theiefoie belongeu to hei as usufiuctuaiy oi life tenant. Sophie Siefeit anu Elisa Elianoff, legal heiis of the ueceaseu, opposeu saiu petition on the giounu that the stock uiviuenu in question was not income but foimeu pait of the capital anu theiefoie belongeu not to the usufiuctuaiy but to the iemainueiman. The lowei couit gianteu the petition anu oveiiuleu theii objection. Siefei anu Elianoff appealeu. Aiticle 471 of the Civil Coue pioviues that the usufiuctuaiy shall be entitleu to ieceive all the natuial, inuustiial, anu civil fiuits of the piopeity in usufiuct. Fuithei, Aiticles 474 pioviues that " Civil fiuits aie ueemeu to acciue uay by uay, anu belong to the usufiuctuaiy in proportion to the time the usufruct may last. Article 475, on the other hand, provides that When a usufruct is cieateu on the iight to ieceive an income oi peiiouical ievenue, eithei in money oi fiuits, oi the inteiest on bonus oi secuiities payable to beaiei, each matuieu payment shall be consiueieu as the pioceeus oi fiuits of such iight. When it consists of the enjoyment of the benefits aiising fiom an inteiest in an inuustiial oi commeicial enteipiise, the piofits of which aie not uistiibuteu at fixeu peiious, such piofits shall have the same consiueiation. In eithei case they shall be uistiibuteu as civil fiuits, anu shall be applieu in accoiuance with the iules piesciibeu by the next pieceuing aiticle." A uiviuenu, whethei in the fiom of cash oi stock, is income oi fiuit anu consequently shoulu go to the usufiuctuaiy iathei than the ownei of the shaies of stock in usufiuct. Biviuenu is ueclaieu only out of the piofits of a coipoiation anu not out of its capital. C",>5",> 7; &")'#"=]8')"= Q:N%:2<:= )'( )*+) 912"./H:J( 34 Sugai planteis of TS moitgageu theii lanus in oiuei to secuie the uebts of TS against PNB. As compensation foi the iisk the planteis took, TS unueitook to give them a bonus equal to 2% of the uebt secuieu. Bachrach filed a case against TS, asking for Ledesmas credit bonus as a payment for the latters debt to Bachrach. TS answered that Ledesmas cieuit bonus hau been puichaseu by anothei. PNB allegeu that it hau A bonus paiu by the moitgage-uebtoi to anothei who hau moitgageu his lanu to secure the payment of the debtors obligation to a bank is not a civil fiuit of the moitgageu piopeity. Such bonus beais no immeuiate, but only a iemote anu acciuental ielation to the lanu. It is not income ueliveieu fiom the piopeity but a compensation gianteu foi the iisk assumeu by the ownei of the piopeity. 11 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. piefeiential iight to the bonus because such bonus woulu be civil fiuits of the lanu that Leuesma moitgageu. C$56"503 7; C"(",)"6 X1O:2<:= >?( )*+? Y."=:/( 34 Beinaiuo bought a paicel of lanu only to uiscovei that Bataclan is possessing the same. LC helu Bataclan to be a possessoi in goou faith anu thus entitleu to ieimbuisement with iight of ietention subject to Bernardos 2 options whether to sell the land to Bataclan, but Bataclan was unable to pay anu so the lanu was solu at a public auction. The couit removed Bataclans right of retention. When Beinaiuo opteu to sell the lanu to Bataclan, he lost his iight to ietention ovei the saiu piopeity. When, in the face of a conflict between the iights of an ownei anu a BPS in goou faith, the ownei opts to sell the lanu to the BPS who is subsequently unable to pay, the BPS loses his iight of ietention. LB6",'3 7; /')"5'3 !N=7/ +A( )*FB4 -1=.E( D434 Lowei couit ienueieu juugment holuing Bilaiio as the legal ownei of a piopeity, but ceueu to Ignacio the owneiship of the impiovements he built on the same lanu. Bilaiio was given the option to ieimbuise Ignacio foi the impiovements oi to sell the lanu to Ignacio. Bilaiio exeiciseu neithei option. Since the option to iemove oi uemolish impiovement is given to the L0 anu it is limiteu to paying foi the impiovement oi selling his lanu to the BPS, he cannot iefuse to exeicise his iight of choice anu compel the builuei to iemove oi uemolish the impiovement. Be is entitleu to such iemoval only when aftei choosing to sell his lanu, the othei paity fails to pay foi the same. 8"5:'$6(3 7; MB"6" !N=7/ +A( )*?F -:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34 Spouses valentino weie tolu by mothei of wife to constiuct a iesiuentioal house only to finu out latei that the lanu uiu not belong to the mothei but to the Santos sps. Who solu the same to Saimiento. Sps. valentino may not be ejecteu fiom the lanu, because they weie builueis in uF. The ownei of a builuing eiecteu in uF on a lanu owneu by anothei is entitleu to ietain possession of the lanu until he is paiu the value of the builuing. 4$@5" 7; 4+:)"3 -.5 )B( )*?, -:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34
Dumlaos kitchen encroached on 34sq.m. of Depras property. Depra fileu an unlawful uetainei. LC founu Bumlao to be a builuei in uF, anu oiueieu a foiceu lease on the paities. Bepia, insteau of accepting ientals, fileu foi quieting of title The municipal court has no authority to impose a forced lease. The ownei of the lanu on which the impiovement was built by anothei in uF is entitleu to iemoval of impiovement only aftei L0 has opteu to sell the lanu anu the builuei iefuseu to pay foi the same. &$,63B"# K>'); P?B; !35@; 7; !M ;:<=".=5 )A( )**' G.E#.E7<.E( 34 Tecnogas uiscoveieu that poitions of its builuings anu wall weie occupying Uys land. The wall was presumably erected by the former owneis. Tecnogas offeieu to buy the lanu by 0y iefuseu. 0y then causeu canal to be uug along the wall, causing it to collapse. Theie is no question that when P puichaseu the lanu fiom Paiiz Inu., the builuings anu othei stiuctuies weie alieauy in existence. As such, the supeivening awaieness of the encioachment by petitionei uoes not militate against its iight to claim the status of a builuei in uF. I5('H 7; b"="6"6 3"/5 +A( )*'* !E%1E71( 34 Homestead Application Lot belonged to Dolorico II, Ortizs ward located in Baiiio Cabuluan, Calauag, Quezon. Boloiico II nameu as successoi anu heii his uncle Boloiico, then uieu. All this time 0itiz was in possession anu cultivation of the piopeity.
Boloiico ielinquisheu iights ovei piopeity in favoui of Comintan anu Zamoia.
Couit founu 0itiz to be in goou faith, but helu the public biuuing to be valiu. If petitionei was not founu to be the winnei, Comintan anu Zamoia aie to ieimbuise him foi P1S,6S2. 0itiz is to ietain possession until the amount is paiu.
Responuent }uuge uiscoveieu that aftei the uecision of the lowei couits, 0itiz collecteu tolls on poition of the lanu even if he hau not intiouuceu any impiovements on saiu poitions estimateu to amount to P2S,uuu. petitionei is N0T entitleu to fiuits while Comintan anu Zamoia have yet to pay the inuemnity uue him. Befoie possession is legally inteiiupteu, possessoi in goou faith is entitleu to fiuits. This iight ceases upon uefects being known. This is known as a iight to ietention, foi the cieuitoi to obtain payment of a uebt. Also we must consiuei that tolls weie collecteu fiom poitions with no impiovements of petitionei, theiefoie he ieally has no iight to saiu fiuits 12 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#.
Petitionei contenus that he is entitleu to the fiuits of the piopeity while the P1S,6S2 has yet to be paiu, this being consiueieu as civil fiuits.
\$:'6'"63 7; !M 3"/5 >F( )**B C.O7H:( 3=4 34 Lot originally owned by Gs mom. On one portion of the lot stood Gs unfinisheu house, which they sold to PR. Then, Gs mom executed a contiact of lease a poition of the lot, incluuing the poition on which the house stanus. Piivate iesponuents cannot be consiueieu possessois noi builueis in uF being meie lessees, they knew that theii occupation was tempoiaiy. Pleasantville Devt Corp v. CA ;:<=".=5 )( )**B G.E#.E7<.E( 34 Edith Robillo purchased a parcel of land, Lot 9, from Pleasantville Devt Coipoiation in Pleasantville Subuivision, Bacolou City. Eluieu }aiuinico bought the iights to the lot fiom Robillo. At that time, Lot 9 was vacant. 0pon completing all payments anu secuiing a TCT in his name, }aiuinico uiscoveieu that impiovements hau been intiouuceu on Lot 9 by Wilson Kee, who hau taken possession theieof. It appeais that Kee bought on installment G3( a fiom CT Toiies Enteipiises Inc (CTTEI), the ieal estate agent of Pleasantville. 0nuei the Contiact to Sell, Kee coulu anu uiu possess the lot even befoie the completion of payments. Zenaida Octaviano, CTTEIs employee, was the one who mistakenly pointed out Lot 9 (instead of Lot 8) to Kees wife. Thereafter, Kee built his iesiuence, a stoie, an auto iepaii shop, anu othei impiovements on the lot. }aiuinico confionteu Kee aftei uiscoveiing that the lattei was occupying Lot 9. Kee iefuseu to vacate, hence }aiuinico fileu an ejectment suit with uamages. RTC: Kee is a builuei in bau faith. Assuming aiguenuo that Kee was acting in goou faith, he was nonetheless guilty of unlawfully usuiping the possessoiy iight of }aiuinico ovei Lot 9 fiom the time he was seiveu with notice to vacate saiu lot, anu was thus liable foi iental. CA: Kee was a builder in good faith, as he was unaware of the mix-up when he began constiuction of the impiovements. The eiioneous ueliveiy was uue to the fault of CTTEI anu thus imputable to Pleasantville, the piincipal. Kee = builuei in uF
The ioots of the contioveisy can be tiaceu in the eiiois committeu by CTTEI when it pointeu the wiong lot to Kee. uoou faith consists in the belief of the builuei that the lanu he is builuing on is his anu he is ignoiant of any uefect oi flaw in his title. Anu as goou faith is piesumeu, Pleasantville has the buiuen of pioving bau faith on the pait of Kee. At the time he built the impiovements on Lot 9, Kee believeu that the saiu lot was the one he bought. Be was not awaie that the lot ueliveieu to him was not Lot 8. Pleasantville faileu to piove otheiwise. violation of the Contiact of Sale on Installment may not be the basis to negate the piesumption that Kee was a builuei in goou faith. Such violations have no beaiing whatsoevei on whethei Kee was a builuei in goou faith, that is, on his state of minu at the time he built the impiovements on Lot 9. These allegeu violations may give iise to petitioners cause of action against Kee unuei the saiu contiact (contiactual bieach) but may not be bases to negate the piesumption that Kee was a builuei in goou faith. .$)',$# 7; L5'3)$ P"= `cA _ddY Felices was the giantee of a homesteau ovei 8has. Be conveyeu in conuitional sale to Iiiole a poition of his homesteau of moie than 4has. The conveyance expiessly stipulates that aftei the lapse of S yeais oi as soon as may be alloweu by law, the venuoi oi his successois woulu execute in vendees favor a deed of absolute sale over the lanu in question.
2 yeais aftei the sale, F tiieu to iecovei fiom I, but the lattei iefuseu to allow it unless he was paiu the allegeu value of impiovements he hau intiouuce theiein. The iule of A4SS invokeu by I cannot be applieu to the instant case foi the ieason that the impiovements in question weie maue on the piemises only "'()* F hau tiieu to iecovei the lanu in question fiom him, anu even uuiing penuency of this action in the lowei couit. Bence, he built the impiovement in BF. V+[+'0 7; !M Peuio Pecson owneu a commeicial lot in Kamias anu built a foui-uooi Pecson is a builuei in goou faith. Nuguiu is the lanuownei. 1S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. two-stoiey apaitment builuing. Be faileu to pay iealty taxes, so the L0T was solu at public auction to Nameito Nepomuceno, anu latei to the Sps. }uan anu Eilinua Nuguiu. Case 1: Pecson challengeu the valiuity of the auction sale. SC: Sps. Nuguiu owneu the lot, while Pecson still owneu the builuing (Nay S, 199S). Case 2: Nuguius sought ueliveiy of possession of the lot anu apaitment builuing, i.e., they want to acquiie the builuing. SC (Nov. 1S, 199S): 1. Ait. 448, NCC: Case is apposite as when the lanuownei is the BPS who then latei loses owneiship thiough sale; 2. Cuiient maiket value of the builuing shoulu be the basis of the inuemnity; S. Pecson entitleu to ietain owneiship of the builuing anu the income theiefiom; 4. CA erred in upholding TCs determination of indemnity (P53,000.00 constiuction cost) anu in also oiueiing Pecson to account foi ient. S. Remanueu to TC foi ueteimination of CNv.
Case S (Case at bai): CNv = P4uu,uuu. Pecson alieauy ieceiveu PSuu,uuu fiom Sps. Nuguiu; balance of P1uu,uuu paiu theieaftei. TC uiiecteu Sps. Nuguiu to also pay P1.S4 million foi ientals fiom Nov. 199S to Bec. 1997 ( P28Kmo.) Thus, petition. Ait. 448, NCC entitles lanuownei (Nuguiu) to eithei appiopiiate the builuing upon payment of inuemnity oi sell the lanu. Nuguiu sought appiopiiation. Ait. S46, NCC entitles the BPS to full ieimbuisement foi all the necessaiy anu useful expenses, anu the iight of ietention until full ieimbuisement is maue. Bowevei, until the payment of inuemnity is full, the BPS (Pecson) has a RIuBT of RETENTI0N (which incluues the iight to the expenses anu the iight to the fiuits) as a builuei in goou faith. Thus, he cannot be compelleu to pay ientals uuiing the peiiou of ietention noi be uistuibeu in his possession by oiueiing him to vacate. The lanuownei is piohibiteu fiom offsetting oi compensating the necessaiy anu useful expenses with the fiuits ieceiveu by the BPS in goou faith. 2$@+<)', 7; !M W0%1<:= )>( )*?F R"%7:==:J 3=4( 34 The Republic opposeu the iegistiation of lots aujacent to the piopeity of R on the giounu that they meiely tiansfeiieu theii uikes fuithei uown the Neycauayan iivei beu, such that if theie is any accietion to speak of, it was man-maue anu aitificial anu not the iesult of giauual anu impeiceptible seuimentation by the wateis of the iivei. What R claims as accietion is ieally an encioachment of a poition of the iivei by ieclamation causeu by theii having tiansfeiieu theii uikes towaius the iivei beu. Being a poition of the beu of saiu iivei, the lots aie of the public uominion anu not iegisteiable unuei the LRA.
A4S7 iequisites: concuiience of (1) that the ueposit be giauual anu impeiceptible; (2) that it be maue thiough the effects of the cuiient of the watei; anu (S) that the lanu wheie accietion takes place is aujacent to the banks of the iiveis. -- #2 is inuispensable. This incluues all ueposits causeu by human inteivention. \5"60$ 7; !M 3"E: +A( )*B> L.==:=.( 34 uianue siblings aie the owneis of a paicel of lanu, with an aiea of S.SuS2 hectaies, locateu at baiiio Ragan, Nagsaysay (foimeily Tumauini), Isabela by inheiitance fiom theii ueceaseu mothei Patiicia Angui who in tuin inheiiteu it fiom hei paients Isiuio Angui anu Ana Lopez, in whose name the lanu is iegisteieu. When it was suiveyeu foi puiposes of iegistiation, sometime in 19Su, its noitheastein bounuaiy was the Cagayan Rivei. Since then, anu foi many yeais theieaftei, a giauual accietion on the noitheastein siue took place, by action of the saiu iivei, so much, so that by 19S8, the bank theieof hau ieceueu t a uistance of about 1uS meteis fiom its oiiginal site, anu an alluvial ueposite of 19,964 sq. meteis moie oi less hau been auueu to The accietion uoes not +$,- '"/(- become iegisteieu like the lanu to which it is attacheu. 0wneiship of lanu is uiffeient fiom iegistiation. 0wneiship is goveineu by the civil coue while the impiesciiptibility of iegisteieu lanu is goveineu by the Lanu Registiation anu Cauastial Acts. &3 3<("'6 (>$ @53($,('36 3? ':@5$#,5'@('<')'(=A (>$ )"60 :+#( <$ @)",$0 +60$5 (>$ 3@$5"('36 3? (>$ 5$B'#(5"('36 )"9# 9>$5$'6 ,$5("'6 E+0','") @53,$0+5$# :+#( <$ 3<#$57$0; The fact iemains that the uianues have not sought iegistiation of the alluvial piopeity in uispute up to the time they fileu an action against iesponuents. Because of this, saiu accietion is not piotecteu by impiesciiptibility.
14 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. the iegisteieu lanu. 0n }an. 2S, 19S8, the siblings instituteu a case to quiet title against piivate iesponuent Calalungs anu allegeu that they weie in foimei peaceful possession of saiu alluvial ueposit when iesponuents encioacheu the lanu claiming owneiship. The tiial couit iuleu in favoi of the uianues iatiocinating that, by accession the lanu in question peitains to the oiiginal estate, anu since the oiiginal estate is iegisteieu, the accietion consequently is automatically iegisteieu too. Theie can also be no acquisitive piesciiption in favoi of the Calalungs since the lanu is alieauy iegisteieu. The action to claim lanu by the owneis which is iegisteieu is impiesciiptible. 0pon appeal, the Couit of Appeals ieveiseu the iuling of the tiial couit thus this appeal by the uianues. The Couit of Appeals have acquiieu eviuence that iesponuent Calalungs weie in open anu continuous possession of the accietion since 19SS oi 19S4 up to the time the action against them was fileu. The piesciiptive peiiou in this applieu in this case is 1u yeais anu not Su since the law applicable is Act 190 and not the Civil Code. Respondents possession staiteu in 19SS oi 19S4 when the peitinent aiticles of the olu Civil Coue weie not yet in foice. P$6$#$# 7; !M 3"/5 )F( )**, S"7.$1E( 34 Baium issueu to Neneses 0CTs anu fiee patents ovei lots, which weie founu by the couit to be accietion lanus foiming paits of the biggei accietion lanu owneu by Ciiiaca Aiguelles vua. ue Quisumbing. V"7"553 7; LM! _ddW Pascual claimeu owneiship to a paicel of lanu claiming that it was an accietion to his piopeity. Navaiio opposeu saying that such piopeity has always been pait of public piopeity. Subject piopeity is situateu between 2 iiveis anu is fionteu by the Nanila Bay. If the lanu in uispute was foimeu by the action of the 2 iiveis, then it is an accietion, hence owneu by Pascual. If it weie foimeu by the action of Nanila Bay, then it is foieshoie lanu, hence pait of public uomain The piopeity is foieshoie lanu, hence pait of public uomain. The piopeity is an accietion of on a sea bank, Nanila Bay being an inlet oi aim of the sea, as such, the uisputeu piopeity is, unuei Ait.4 of 1886 Spanish Law of Wateis, public uomain
Ripaiian owneis, aie stiictly speaking, uistinct fiom littoial owneis, the lattei being owneis of lanus boiueiing seashoie oi lake oi othei tiual waves.
The alluvium, by manuate of A4S7, is automatically owneu by the iipaiian ownei fiom the moment the soil ueposit can be seen but ut is not automatically iegisteieu piopeity, hence, subject to acquisition thiough piesciiption by S iu peison. C"$# 7; !M 3"/5 B( )**+ D="J( 34 The goveinment uug a canal on a piotion of lanu owneu by Baes to stieamline the Tiipa uei Callina cieek. In exchange foi such poition, B was given a lot with an equal aiea. When B hau his lots iesuiveyeu anu subuiviueu, the aiea of the olu cieek beu was incluueu such that his landholdings increased. Upon petition by the govt TC ordered status qui piioi to iesuivey. Bowevei, B contenus that unuei A461, the aiea of the olu cieek shoulu belong to him because it says that once the iivei beu has been abandoned, the owners of the land invaded by the rivers new couise automatically become the ownei of the abanuoneu beu. Bs contention is impressed with merit. The law speaks of the natural change in the couise of the stiam, anu of the iipoaiian ownei is entitleu to compensation foi uamge to oi loss of piopeity uue to natuial causes, theres all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the couise of the iivei is effecteu thiough aitificial means. B0T, since he has been given an equivalent lot, he is no longei entitleu unuei the piinciple of unjust eniichment. C'6")"= 7; P"6")3
}uuge Taccau owneu a paicel of lanuon the west, boiueiing on the Cagayan Rivei, on the east, the national ioau. The westein poition woulu occasionally go unuei the wateis anu ieappeai uuiing the uiy season. Nanalo puichaseu the lanu. A ielocation suivey was conuucteu uuiing the iainy season, so the suivey uiun't covei the submeigeu lanu. The sketch woulu show that the iivei bianches thiough the west anu east, leaving a stiip of lanu. The lanu was then suiveyeu into two 2 lots. 0ne of these is being claimeu by Nanalo Accoiuing to the Law of Wateis, the natuial beu oi channel of a cieek oi iivei is the giounu coveieu by its wateis uuiing the highest floous.
This being the case, the subject lanu coulun't have been solu to Nanalo, being pait of the public uomain. 1S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. thiough accietion. 8'"5' O"))$= R#("($# 7; G+,"#"6 SvE sought to iecovei 2uu heaus of cattle that weie uiiven oi wanueieu fiom its pastuie lanus into the aujoining lanus of Lucasan. Lucasan himself aumitteu such commixtion although he says that SvE hau alieauy ietiieveu its animals. Which belongs to whom can no longei be ueteimineu. Lucasan willfully causeu the commixtion such that AS8S (now $7S) he will be helu to foifeit his own cattle. No actual eviuence that the 82S missing cattle weie taken by Lucasan, but in view of the pioof that his men, on 2 occasions, uiove away moie than Su heaus, it may be piesumeu that the otheis must have also been uiiven away subsequent oi piioi occasions.
0ne who has stole a pait of the stolen money must have taken the laigei sum lost by the offenueu paity.
If the commingling of two things is maue in bau faith, the one iesponsible foi it will lose his shaie. 8"6(3# 7; C$56"<$ X1O:2<:= B( )*>* 67//.8=:./( 34 0ibano Santos (778 cavans anu S8 kilos of palay) anu Pablo Tiongson (1,u26 cavans anu 9 kilos of palay) both uepositeu in the waiehouse of }ose Beinabe palay with the same giaue anu quality. Bowevei, it uoes not appeai which sack belongs to Santos anu which is owneu by Tiongson. Theie weie no maiks oi signs, noi weie they sepaiateu fiom each othei. Tiongson fileu a case against Beinabe foi the iecoveiy of the palay he uepositeu in his waiehouse. The wiit of attachment foi the saiu palay was gianteu anu the attachable piopeity of Beinabe incluuing the 924 cavans anu S1.S kilos palay founu in his waiehouse weie attacheu, solu in public auction anu the pioceeus ueliveieu to Tiongson. Santos then inteiveneu contenuing that Tiongson cannot claim the 924c & S1.Sk palay because by asking foi the attachment theieof, he implieuly acknowleugeu that the same belongeu to Beinabe anu not to Tiongson. Also because, some of these palay coulu be those uepositeu by Santos. Art 381 of the CC prescribes that if by will of their owners, two things of iuentical oi uissimilai natuie aie mixeu, oi if the mixtuie occuis acciuentally, if in the latei case the things cannot be sepaiateu without injuiy, each ownei shall acquiie a iight in the mixtuie piopoitionate to the pait belonging to him, accoiuing o the value of the things mixeu oi commingled. In the piesent case, since the numbei of kilos in a cavan has not been ueteimineu, only of the 924 cavans of palay which weie attacheu anu solu shall be uistiibuteu piopoitionately between Santos (S98.49 cavans) anu Tiongson (S2S.S2 cavans) oi the value theieof at the iate of PScavan. I)7'B" 7; !M 0lviga was able to iegistei a title of a paicel of lanu in his name. uloi sps. Fileu an action foi ieconveyance since they hau pieviously puichaseu the lanu anu weie the ieal anu actual occupants of the lanu. CA iuleu that action by uloi sps is one foi quieting of title that uoes not piesciibe. An action foi ieconveyance: (a) Piesciibes in 1u yeais if the plaintiff is not in possession of the piopeity anu if the action foi ieconveyance is baseu on an implieu oi constiuctive tiust. The point of iefeience is the uate of iegistiation of the ueeu oi the uate of the issuance of the title ovei the piopeity. (b) Is INPRESCRIPTIBLE if the peison claiming to be an ownei is in actual possession of the piopeity. Beie, the iight to seek ieconvenyance in effect seeks to quiet title. K'6B3) 7; !M Q:N%:2<:= B( )**+ C.O7H:( 3=4 34 Petitionei vicente Pingol is the ownei of Lot No. S22S of the Cauastial Suivey of Caloocan, with an aiea of S49 squaie meteis, locateu at Bagong Baiiio, Caloocan City anu moie paiticulaily uesciibeu in Tiansfei Ceitificate of Title (TCT) No. 74SS of the Registiy of Beeus of Caloocan City. On 17 February 1969, he executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE 0F 0NE-BALF 0F (12) |0Fj AN 0NBIvIBEB P0RTI0N 0F A PARCEL OF LAND in favor of Francisco N. Donasco which was Although the private respondents complaint before the tiial couit was uenominateu as one foi specific peifoimance, it is in effect an action to quiet title. That a clouu has been cast on the title of the piivate iesponuents is inuubitable. Bespite the fact that the title hau been tiansfeiieu to them by the execution of the ueeu of sale anu the ueliveiy of the object of the contiact, the petitioneis auamantly iefuseu to accept the tenuei of payment by the piivate iesponuents anu steaufastly 16 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. acknowleugeu befoie a notaiy public. Puisuant to the contiact, Bonasco paiu P2,uuu.uu to Pingol. The one-half poition, uesignateu as Lot No. S22S-A, was then segiegateu fiom the mothei lot, anu the paities piepaieu a subuivision plan which was appioveu by the Lanu Registiation Commission. Fiancisco immeuiately took possession of the subject lot anu constiucteu a house theieon. In }anuaiy 197u, he staiteu paying the monthly installments but was able to pay only up to 1972.0n 1S }uly 1984, Fiancisco Bonasco uieu. At the time of his uemise, he hau paiu P8,S69.uu, plus the P2,uuu.uu auvance payment, leaving a balance of P1u,161.uu on the contiact piice. Lot No. S22S-A iemaineu in the possession of Donascos heirs. On 19 October 1988, the heirs of Fiancisco Bonasco filed an action for Specific Performance and Damages, with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the spouses vicente anu Louiues Pingol (petitioneis heiein) befoie the RTC of Caloocan City. insisteu that theii obligation to tiansfei title hau been ienueieu ineffective. A venuee in an oial contiact to convey lanu who hau maue pait payment theieof, enteieu upon the lanu anu hau maue valuable impiovements theieon, is entitleu to biing suit to cleai his title against the venuoi who hau iefuseu to tiansfei the title to him. It is not necessaiy that the venuee has an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with peisonality to biing an action to quiet title. &'(36B 7; !M -.=0K B( )**? 912:=1( 34 The case oiiginateu fiom an action foi quieting of title fileu by petitionei Naiio Titong. The Regional Tiial Couit of Nasbate, Nasbate, Bianch 44 iuleu in of piivate iesponuents, victoiico Lauiio anu Angeles Lauiio, aujuuging them the tiue anu lawful owneis of the uisputeu lanu. Affiimeu on appeal to the Couit, of Appeals, petitionei comes to us foi a favoiable ieveisal. Petitionei alleges that he is the ownei of an uniegisteieu paicel of lanu with an aiea of S.28uu hectaies, moie oi less, suiveyeu as Lot No. S918, anu ueclaieu foi taxation puiposes in his name. Be claims that on thiee sepaiate occasions in Septembei 198S, piivate iesponuents, with theii hiieu laboieis, foicibly enteieu a poition of the lanu containing an aiea of appioximately two (2) hectaies; anu began plowing the same unuei pietext of owneiship. Piivate iesponuents uenieu this allegation, anu aveiieu that the uisputeu piopeity foimeu pait of the S.S-hectaie agiicultuial lanu which they hau puichaseu fiom theii pieuecessoi-in- inteiest, Pablo Espinosa on August 1u, 1981.
0nuei A476, a claimant must show that theie is an instiument, iecoiu, claim, encumbiance oi pioceeuing which constitutes oi casts a clouu, doubt, question or shadow upon the owners title to or interest in real piopeity. The giounu oi ieason foi filing a complaint foi quieting of title must therefore be an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding. Under the maxim )0$*),+- #+1, ),( )0/21,+- "2()*+1,, these giounus aie exclusive so that othei ieasons outsiue of the puiview of these ieasons may not be consiueieu valiu foi the same action. K35(', 7; !5'#(3<") !N=7/ >>( >AA, G.E#.E7<.E( 34 In 1968, spouses Poitic acquiieu a paicel of lanu with a S uooi apartment from Sps. Alcantara even though theyre aware that the land was moitgageu to the SSS. Poitic uefaulteu in paying SSS. The Poitics then executeu a contiact with Ciistobal anu the lattei agieeu to buy the said property for P200k. Cristobals down payment was P45k and she also agieeu to pay SSS. The contiact between them states: That while the balance of P1SS,uuu.uu has not yet been fully paiu the FIRST PARTY 0WNERS shall ietain the owneiship of the above uesciibeu paicel of lanu togethei with its impiovements but the SEC0NB PARTY B0YER shall have the iight to collect the monthly Suits to quiet title aie chaiacteiizeu as pioceeuings quasi in iem. Technically, they aie neithei in iem noi in peisonam. In an action quasi in iem, an inuiviuual is nameu as uefenuant. Bowevei, unlike suits in iem, a quasi in iem juugment is conclusive only between the paities. 17 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. ientals uue on the fiist uooi (1S-A) of the saiu apaitment; (payment is uue 22 Nay 198S, if Ciistobal will not be able to pay Poitic will ieimbuise) A tiansfei ceitificate was executeu in favoi of Ciistobal. Ciistobal was not able to pay on the uue uate. A suit ensueu to lift the clouu on the title. K"50$)) 7; C"5(3)3:$ X1O:2<:= )?( )*)> T1==:$( 34 Case among co-owneis, useu to be thiee, but the suivivoi weie stiongest weie two women, male uiu not suivive. Be uieu. They weie quaiielling ovei theii inheiitance, among which is a house, in the same heiitage city oi village pait of vigan. See how a house owneu in common was to be useu. 0ne sistei was asking foi accounting of fiuits of the house. Each coownei oi tenant in common of unuiviueu iealty has the same iights theiein as the otheis; he may use anu enjoy the same without othei limitation except that he must not piejuuice the iights of his coowneis, but until a uivision is effecteu, the iespective paits belonging to each cannot be ueteimineu; each coownei exeicises joint uominion anu is entitleu to joint use. Foi the use anu enjoyment of a paiticulai poition of the lowei pait of a house, not useu as living quaiteis, a coownei must, in stiict justice, pay ient, in like mannei as othei people pay foi similai space in the house; he has no iight to the fiee use anu enjoyment of such space which, if ienteu to a thiiu paity, woulu piouuce income. 0ntil a cause instituteu to ueteimine the liability of the iest of the coowneis foi iepaiis anu impiovements maue by one of theii numbei is finally ueciueu anu the amount uue is fixeu, the peisons allegeu to be liable cannot be consiueieu in uefault as to inteiest, because inteiest is only uue fiom the uate of the uecision fixing the piincipal liability.
\"(,>")'"6 7; !L2 !N=7/ >*( )*+* [2N:=7./( 34 1S inuiviuuals maue contiibutions to puichase a sweepstakes ticket registered in Gatchalians name. the ticket won S iu piize. u was then iequiieu to file the coiiesponuing ITR coveiing the piize. They faileu to pay. CIR issueu a waiiant of uistiaint anu levy, to avoiu embaiiassment the 1S paiu unuei piotest. This happeneu a 2 nu time foi the balance. The 1S then uemanueu iefunu. If the plaintiff foimeu a paitneiship, they aie liable foi the payment of the IT; wheieas of theie was meiely a community of piopeity, they aie exempt. Accoiuing to the facts, the plaintiffs oiganizeu a paitneiship fo civil natuie because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket foi the sole puipose of uiviuing equally the piize which they may win. K+6#")"6 7; C336 G'"( 3.E".=5 )A( )*>+ !O.E0:V.( 34 22 fisheimen agieeu to be the sole owneis of 2 V sacks of ambeigiis founu in the belly of a whale anu they agieeu that none coulu sell without the others consent. Teck, who knew of the ambergris proposed the seizuie of contiabanu opium, which was actually the ambeigiis. The ambeigiis having been seizeu anu loaueu anu biought to Zamboanga along with Ahmau, who was left in chaige. Teck then pioceeueu to offei to puichase the A to which Ahmau iefuseu but was latei on convinceu as he was piomiseu piotection fiom his co-owneis. Sale not valiu. The A was unuiviueu common piopeity of the plaintiffs anu one of the uefs. This common owneiship was acquiieu by occupancy. None of them hau any iight to sell, theie being an expiess agreement to the contrary. Sale having been made without others consent, the same shall have no effect except as to the poition peitaining to those who maue them. &9'6 &39$5# !3603 7; !M ;:<=".=5 >'( >AA+ D.=N71( 34 TTCC fileu a complaint with the SEC against ALS anu Litonjua piaying that the lattei be oiueieu to pay soliuaiilty the unpaiu conuominium assessments anu uues with inteiests anu penalties coveiing the 4 quearters of 1986 & 1987 and the first qtr of 88. Petitioners Master Deed provides that a member of the Condominium coipoiation shall shaie in the common expenses of the conuominium pioject. This obligation uoes not uepenu on the use oi non-use by the membei of the common aieas anu facilities of the Conuominium. Whethei oi not a membei uses the common aieas oi facilities, these aieas anu facilities will have to be maintaineu. Expenuituies must be maue to maintain the common aieas anu facilities whethei a membei uses them fiequently, infiequently oi nevei at all. 18 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. 2$#+$6" 7; !M -.=0K >?( >AA, T7E#.( 34 A co-ownei may biing an action to exeicise anu piotect the iights of all. When the action is biought by one co-ownei foi the benefit of all, a favoiable uecision will benefit them, but an auveise uecision cannot prejudice their rights. Resps action for ejectment against petitioners is ueemeu to be instituteu foi the benefit of all co-owneis of the piopeity since the petitioners werent able to prove that they are authorized to occupy the same. !5+H 7; !M !N=7/ ),( >AA, T7E#.( 34 Auoiacion + chiluien fileu a case against Summit + Ainel (sib). They allegeu that they aie co-owneis of a paicel of lanu, albeit it was only in Arnels name. They actually already partitioned thae property, as shown by ueeu. Co-owneiship is teiminateu upon juuicial oi e-juuicial paitition of the piopeities owneu in common; paitition is the sepaiation, uivision anu assignment of a thing helu in common among those to whom it may belong.
To be consiueieu a co-owner, one must have a spiritual part of a thing which is not physically uiviueu, oi each of them is an ownei of the whole, anu ovei the whole he exeicises the iight of uominion, but he is at the same time the ownei of a poition which is tiuly abstiact. G"7"0'" 7; !3#:$ -.5 *( )*F) C7.J( 34 6 pious women (A, B, C, B, E, F) bought jeweliy fiom the Image of 0ui Lauy of uuaualupe. B hau initial custouy, then E, then the vaiious uescenuants of E, anu finally C. C wanteu to make the Bishop of Lipa custouian, the plaintiffs (F anu the heiis of A, B, C) objecteu anu uesignateu F as the custouian theieof. TC: inasmuch as the plaintiff aie the owneis of 46 paits pio inuiviso of the jewels, anu uefenuants (heiis of B & E), only 26, they have the iight to ueteimine who shoulu be entiusteu with the custouy. Plaintiffs have such iight. With the amount of inuiviuual contiibution unueteimineu, the law piesumes that all of them contiibuteu piopoitionately. Simple majoiity iule. P$)$6,'3 7; 4= &'"3 G"= X1O:2<:= )( )*+A W$%=.EH( 34 Aftei the ueath of the ownei of lanu in Q, his wiuow anu S of his chiluien executeu a contiact of lease of the lanu in favoi of the pieuecessoi-in- inteiest of BTL. The teim was foi 2u yeais, extenuible foi a like peiiou at lessees option. Further stipulateu that at the teimination of the oiiginal peiiou oi its extension, lessois might puichase all the builuings on the lanu at a piice to be fixeu by expeits, but if the lessois shoulu fail to uo that, the lease woulu continue foi anothei 2u.
The lease contiact was not signeu by 2 of the co-heiis. In 192u, the heiis maue an E} paitition of the inheiitance, anu among othei things, the lanu heie in Q fell to the shaie of plaintiffs.
The co-heirs that didnt sign the lease contract brought this action to iecovei possession. In this case only a small majoiity of the co-owneis executeu the lease heie in Q. &+"#36 7; &+"#36 !N=7/ >( )*,) -1E%:2.51=( 34 Angela, Nieves anu Antonio co-owneu a paicel of lanu. They enteieu into a NoA that no C0 shall sell, alienate, oi uispose of his co-owneiship without fiist giving piefeience to the othei C0. Angela askeu that the contiact be iescinueu anu the piopeity be paititioneu stating the at NoA is voiu The NoA, fai fiom violating the legal piohibition that foibius a C0 fiom being obligeu to iemain a paity to the community, piecisely has foi its puipose anu object the uissolution of C0 anu of the community by selling the paicel helu in common anu uiviuing the pioceeus among the C0. the obligation imposeu in the NoA to pieseive the C0 until all lots shall have been solu is a meie inciuent to the main object. 19 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. P"5'"63 7; !M -.5 >?( )**+ X101E( 34 uosengfiao owneu a paicel of lanu. Buiing his lifetime, he obtaineu a loan secuieu by a REN ovei the lanu. 0pon his ueath, he was suiviveu by his wife anu chiluien. The loan was unpaiu anu thus, the REN was foiecloseu. The lanu was ieueemeu by the mothei anu latei solu the same, togethei with the othei chiluien. uiace knew of the sale anu sought annulment of the sale. 1. The iight to ieueem is not lost in the absence of any wiitten notice of the sale by the venuois. The Su-uay peiiou has not begin to iun. 2. The ieuemption of a co-ownei inuies to the benefit of all co-owneis. O$50"0 7; !M !N=7/ >*( )**B 67%"#( 3 Zv is the buyei of the questioneu lot. PR Socoiio seeks to legally ieueem the piopeity anu tiaces hei title to hei late mom-in-law The wiitten notice of sale is manuatoiy foi the tolling of the Su-uay ieuemption peiiou. Notwithstanuing actual knowleuge of a co-ownei, the lattei is still entitleu to a wiitten notice fiom the selling co-ownei in oiuei to iemove all unceitainties about the sale, its teims anu conuitions, as well as its efficacy anu status. 2":'5$H 7; 2":'5$H Q:N%:2<:= >*( )*B' D1E0:N071E( D3 Plaintiff biought this action against uefenuants foi the paitition of a paicel of lanu situateu at the Noithwestein coinei of Escolta stieet anu Plaza Sta. Ciuz, manila 16 to the plaintiff anu S6 to the uefenuants Manuel Uy & Sons expressed its conformity to the partition, if the same can be done without great prejudice to the interests of the parties. Befenuant Butte agieeu to the paitition piayeu foi. The othei uefenuants objecteu to the physical paitition of the piopeity in question, upon the theory that said partition is materially and legally impossible and would work great harm and prejudice to the co-owneis. Wheie, as in this case, no eviuence was intiouuceu to suppoit the claim that a physical uivision of the piopeity will cause inestimable uamage to the inteiest of the co-owneis theieof, a couit oiuei iequiiing it uecision was piopei.
Since the segiegation of the piopeity in question inuieu to the benefit not only of P but also of B, both paities must uefiay the inciuental expenses. MB+')"5 7; !M W0%1<:= >B( )**+ L://1$7//1( 34 P anu B aie biotheis. They bought a house foi theii fathei. Beeu of sale anu title was only in B;s name, because P was uisqualifieu fiom obtaining SSS loan. Aftei uau uieu, P wanteu to sell the piopeity anu uiviue the pioceeus to themselves. B iefuseu. No co-ownei shall be obligeu to iemain in the co-owneiship anu that each co-ownei may uemanu at any time paitition of the thing owneu in common insofai as his shaie is conceineu O0"; 0$ M@$ 7; !M !N=7/ ),( >AA, DK7018X.J.=71( 34 Foitunato Be Ape1 of the 11 heiis of ueceaseuallegeuly solu his pait of the inheiiteu lanu to one Lumayno as eviuenceu by a RECEIPT. Lumayno wanteu to iegistei the claimeu sale tiansaction, she uemanueu that Foitunato execute the coiiesponuing ueeu of sale anu to ieceive the balance of the consiueiation. Fortunato denied Lumaynos claim and insisted that what they hau was an EXPIREB contiact of LEASE. Be nevei solu his shaie in Lot-A to Lumayno anu that his signatuie appeaiing on the puipoiteu ieceipt was foigeu.
Although a paitition might have been infoimal, it is of no moment foi even an oial agieement of paitition is valiu anu binuing upon the paities /")')' 7; !M -.=0K )>( )**? G.E#.E7<.E( 34 uuzman, an Ameiican citizen, uieu anu left some ieal piopeities to his wiuow anu son (both Ameiican citizens( the wiuow then assigneu all hei iights to hei son ovei hei shaie in the 6 paicels of lanu. The son then solu them to Cataniag (Filipino). Balili, the ownei of the aujoining lot, questioneu the constitutionality of the tiansfeis of piopeity anu claimeu owneiship baseu on A1621. Balili cannot exeicise LR. The subject lanu is uiban in chaiactei. B has no iight to invoke LR since A1621 piesupposes that the lanu sought to be ieueemeu is iuial. .5"6,'#,3 7; C3'#$5 -.5 +)( >AAA -:EH1J.( 34 Petitioneis weie the oiiginal owneis of foui paicels of lanu on which stanus the Ten Commanuments Builuing. 0n Aug 6, 1979, they solu 1S of theii unuiiueu shaies to theii mothei, Auela Blas, who in tuin solu hei Ait. 162S iequiies that the wiitten notification shoulu come fiom the venuoi oi piospective venuoi, not fiom any othei peison. It is the notification fiom the sellei, which can iemove all uoubts as to the fact of 2u !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. 1S shaie to Zenaiua Boisei, anothei sistei of petitioneis.
0n August S, 1992, petitionei ieceiveu a summons issueu by the couit baseu on a civil case fileu by the iesponuent wheie the lattei is uemanuing foi hei shaie in the ientals being collecteu fiom the tenants of the builuing.
Naintaining that the Su-uay peiiou foi ieuemption hau not yet begun to iun because the venuoi nevei infoimeu hei anu hei co-owneis about the sale to the iesponuent, petitionei now seeks to exeicise hei iight to ieuemption.
Responuent counteis by saying that petitionei knew about the sale as eaily as Nay Su, 1992, because on that uate, she wiote a lettei to the petitionei infoiming hei of the sale. the sale, its peifection, anu its valiuity, foi in a contiact of sale, the sellei is in the best position to confiim whethei consent to the essential obligation of selling the piopeity anu tiansfeiiing owneiship theieof to the venuee has been given. !"57"E") 7; !M ;:<=".=5 >,( )*?> T::K.E\::( 3; Sale of lots to Caivajal weie maue while the petition foi paitition fileu by Ecaiisto was still penuing 0nless the paitition is effecteu, each heii cannot claim owneiship ovei the uefinite poition anu cannot uispose. 0pon ueath of a peison, each of his heiis becomes the unuiviueu ownei of the whole estate. Be cannot alienate a specific pait of the thing in common to the exclusion of othei co-owneis because his iight ovei the thing is iepiesenteu by an iueal poition. Co-ownei cannot aujuuicate to himself a uefinite poition owneu in common until paitition by agieement oi by juuicial ueciee. Befoie paitition, co-heii can only sell his successional iights. K":@)36" 7; P35$(3 -.=0K +)( )*?A R":==:=1( 34 Sps. Flaviano Noieta anu Nonica Naniega acquiieu aujacent lots Nos. 149S-1496. uuiing theii maiiiage, they begot six chiluien. Noie than 6 yeais aftei the ueath of his wife, Flaviano Noieto, without the consent of the heiis of his ueceaseu wife anu befoie any liquiuation of the conjugal paitneiship coulu be effecteu executeu in favoi of ueminiano Pamplona, maiiieu to Apolonia 0nte, the ueeu of absolute sale coveiing lot No. 149S. Aftei the ueath of Flaviano Noieto, plaintiffs-heiis of Nonica Naniega uemanueu on the uefenuant-spouses to vacate the piemises on the giounu that Flaviano hau no iight to sell the lot as it belongs to the conjugal paitneiship anu Nonica was alieauy ueau when the sale was executeu without the consent of the plaintiffs-heiis. Aftei his wifes death, the husband became entitled to of the entire piopeity, with only V belonging to the heiis. They holu the piopeity as co-owneis.
At the time of the sale, the conjugal paitneiship was alieauy uissolveu anu theiefoie, the estate became a co-owneiship between Flaviano, the suiviving husbanu anu the heiis of his ueceaseu wife. Aticle 49S of the NCC is squaie in point. Bence, at the time of the sale, the co-owneiship constituteu oi coveieu the thiee lots aujacent to each othei. Anu since Flaviano was entitleu to one-half pio-inuiviso of the entiie lanu aiea, he hau a peifect legal anu lawful iight to uispose of his shaie to the Pamplona spouses. !"#(53 7; M('$6H" W0%1<:= )'( )*'+ T::K.E\::( 34 Biotheis Tomas ue Castio anu Aisenio ue Castio, Si., leaseu to plaintiff a fishponu containing an aiea of 26 hectaies situateu in Polo, Bulacan anu foiming pait of a biggei paicel of lanu. The lessois aie co-owneis in equal shaies of the leaseu piopeity. In the meantime, Tomas ue Castio uieu. Latei on, plaintiff as lessee anu uefenuant Aisenio ue Castio, Si. as one of the lessois, agieeu to set asiue anu annul the contiact of lease anu foi this puipose an agieement was signeu by them, Exhibit A as signeu by plaintiff anu uefenuant shows Ait 49S of the NCC allows the alienation of the co-ownei of his pait in the co-owneiship. The effect of such alienation oi moitgage shall be limiteu to the poition which may be allotteu to him in the uivision upon the teimination of the co-owneiship In shoit, a co-ownei can entei into a contiact of lease insofai as to his inteiest. Theiefoie, he can also cancel such lease without the consent fiom the othei co-ownei. 21 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. that Felisa Ciuz vua. Be Castio, wiuow of Tomas ue Castio, was intenueu to be maue a paity theieof in hei capacity as iepiesentative of the heiis of Tomas ue Castio. Felisa Ciuz vua. Be Castio iefuseu to sign. Befenuant uiu not pay P2,Suu.uu which he shoulu have paiu on Becembei foi payment was made by plaintiffs counsel on January 7, 1957 but to no avail, hence the piesent action. Theie was conflicting contentions between the paities as to who between them woulu attenu to secuiing the signatuie of Nis. Felisa Ciuz vua. ue Castio to the agieement of cancellation of the lease with iesponuent Atienza. R#(3[+$ 7; K"E':+)" 3"/5 ),( )*B? 9:5:$( 3LY( 34 Lot 8u2 of the Cauastial suivey of Rosaiio, coveieu by 0CT R0-272u (N.A.), was oiiginally owneu by the late spouses Rosenuo Peiez anu Foitunata Beinal, who weie suiviveu by theii chiluien namely, Ciispina Peiez, Loienzo Peiez anu Ricaiuo Peiez. Ricaiuo Peiez is also now ueau. 0n 28 0ctobei 19S1, Ciispina P. vua. ue Aquitania solu hei iight anu paiticipation in Lot 8u2 consisting of 1S poition with an aiea of 64u squaie meteis to Leonoia Estoque. 0n 29 0ctobei 19S1, Loienzo Peiez, Ciispina Peiez anu Emilia P. Posauas, wiuow of hei ueceaseu husbanu, Ricaiuo Peiez, foi heiself anu in behalf of hei minoi chiluien, uumeisinuo, Raquel, Emilio anu Ricaiuo, }i., executeu a ueeu of extiajuuicial settlement wheiein Loienzo Peiez, Emilia P. Posauas anu hei minoi chiluien assigneu all theii iight, inteiest anu paiticipation in Lot 8u2 to Ciispina Peiez. 0n Su Becembei 19S9, Ciispina Peiez anu hei chiluien, Rosita Aquitania Belmonte, Remeuios Aquitania Nisa, Nanuel Aquitania, Seigio Aquitania anu Auioia Aquitania solu to Elena Pajimula (anu Ciiiaco Pajimula), the iemaining 2S westein poition of Lot 8u2 with an aiea of 9S8 squaie meteis. Leonoia Estoque baseu hei complaint foi legal ieuemption on a claim that she is a co-ownei of lot 8u2, foi having puichaseu 1S poition theieof, containing an aiea of 64u squaie meteis as eviuenceu by a ueeu of sale, which was executeu on 28 0ctobei 19S1 by Ciispina Peiez ue Aquitania, one of the co-owneis, in hei favoi. The lowei couit helu that the ueeus of sale show that the lot acquiieu by Estoque was uiffeient fiom that of the Pajimula; hence they nevei became co-owneis, anu the allegeu iight of legal ieuemption was not piopei. Aiticle 162u, which piovides that A co-ownei of a thing may exeicise the iight of ieuemption in case the shaies of all the othei co- owneis oi of any of them, aie solu to a thiiu peison. If the piice of the alienation is giossly excessive the ieuemptionei shall pay only a ieasonable one. Shoulu two oi moie co-owneis uesiie to exeicise the iight of ieuemption, they may only uo so in piopoition to the shaie they may respectively have in the thing owned in common, does not apply. 4'7$5#'?'$0 !5$0'( 7; 23#"03 C:0:2<:= >F( )*B? 9:5:$( 3LY( 34 The case hau its oiigin in the Nunicipal Couit of Bacolou City, when the Biveisifieu Cieuit Coipoiation fileu an action to compel the spouses Felipe Rosauo anu Luz }ayme Rosauo to vacate anu iestoie possession of a paicel of lanu in the City of Bacolou (Lot 62-B of Subuivision plan LRC- Psu-SS82S) that foims pait of Lot No. 62 of the Bacolou Cauastie, anu is coveieu by Tiansfei Ceitificate of Title No. 27u8S in the name of plaintiff. After answer, claiming that the lot was defendants conjugal piopeity, the Nunicipal Couit oiueieu uefenuants to suiienuei anu Since the shaie of the wife, Luz }ayme, was at no time physically ueteimineu, it cannot be valiuly claimeu that the house constiucteu by hei husbanu was built on lanu belonging to hei, anu Aiticle 1S8 of the Civil Coue can not apply. Ceitainly, on hei 11S iueal oi abstiact unuiviueu shaie, no house coulu be eiecteu. Necessaiily, the claim of conversion of the wifes share from paraphernal to conjugal in character as a iesult of the constiuction must be iejecteu foi lack of factual oi legal basis. 22 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. vacate the lanu in litigation; to pay P1uu.uu a month fiom the filing of the complaint up to the actual vacating of the piemises; to pay PSuu.uu attorneys fees and costs. KVC 7; !M 3"E: >,( )*?A R":==:=1( 34 Aftei the ueath of hei husbanu, Rosa moitgageu the entiie piopeity to PNB. The title to this piopeity was still unuei pioceeuings but was subsequently awaiueu to the spouses a yeai aftei the moitgage. The moitgage to PNB, howevei, was not annotateu. Neanwhile, she uefaulteu with hei obligation to Nanila Tiauing, anu hei shaie was solu at a public auction. After husbands death, the property is supposed to be under co- owneiship of Rosa anu chiluien. She is entitleu theiefoie to only half. By heiself alone, she cant mortgage the whole property. 8+6#$( O'$9 !3603:'6'+: 7; J+0B$ !":@3# !N=7/ >'( )*?) ;:=E.EH:J( 34 Petitionei fileu foi the collection of assessment anu insuiance piemiums against piivate iesponuent. The lattei avei that eveiy puihcasei of a conuo unit, even if not yet fully paiu, is a holuei of sepaiate inteiest anu is automatically a shaieholuei. Section S of the Conuominium Act expiessly pioviues that the shaieholuing in the Conuominium Coipoiation will be conveyeu only in a piopei case. Not eveiy puichasei of a conuominium unit is a shaieholuei of the conuominium coipoiation. The Conuominium Act leaves to the Nastei Beeu the ueteimination of when the shaieholuing will be tiansfeiieu to the puichasei of a unit, as cleaily pioviueu in the ueeu in this case. 0wneiship of a unit, theiefoie, is a conuition ,+&) 31" &-& to being a shaieholuei in the conuominium coipoiation By necessaiy implication, the "sepaiate inteiest" in a conuominium, which entitles the holuei to become automatically a shaie holuei in the conuominium coipoiation, as pioviueu in Section 2 of the Conuominium Act, can be no othei than owneiship of a unit. The piivate iesponuents, consequently, who have not fully paiu the puichase piice of theii units anu aie not owneis of theii units noi membeis oi shaieholueis of the petitionei conuominium coipoiation. !"@'()$ 7; 0$ \"<"6 3"E: ?( >AAF D.=N718-1=./:$( 34 Fabian inheiiteu fiom his uau 2 paicels of lanu. F uieu inteste in 1919, suiviveu by 4 sons, }, Z, Fi, anu N. After Fs death, J occupied and cultivateu the piopeity until his ueath in 19Su. Petitioneis (heiis of othei biotheis) now fileu foi paitition. The auveise possession by }ulian anu his successois-in-inteiest as exclusive ownei of the piopeity having entaileu a peiiou of about 67 yeais at the time of the filing of the case at bai, owneiship by piesciiption hau vesteu in them. 2":3# 7; 4'5; I? G"60# X1O:2<:= )*( )*)? -./01/2( 34 Ramos was a holuei of a possession infoimation title which he latei conveyeu to Romeio. Romeio applieu foi the iegistiation of the lanu. The occupancy of a $"*( of the lanu with an instiument giving coloi of title is sufficient to give title to the )&(+*) tiact of lanu. The geneial iule is that the possession anu cultivation of a poition of a tiact of lanu unuei a claim of owneiship of all is a constiuctive possession of all, IF the iemainuei is not in the auveise possession of anothei. Possession in the eyes of the law uoes not mean that a man has to have his feet on eveiy squaie metei of giounu befoie it can be saiu that he is in possession. 4'5$,(35 7; !M 3"E: >*( )*?F !I"7E1( 34 A lanu was occupieu by 4u tenants uuiing the Spanish iegime. They weie gianteu homesteau applications. Biuno uieu uuiing the Spanish iegime anu was survived by 7 children. Brunos nephew obtained a tax ueclaiation foi the lanu. }uuge issueu a ueciee foi iegistiation of lanu in name of Brunos heirs. The iule on constiuctive possession uoes not apply when the majoi poition of the uisputeu piopeity has been in the auveise possession of homesteaueis anu theii heiis. It is still pait of the public uomain until the patents aie issueu. b"#')"B 7; 23[+$ C:0:2<:= '( )*+* [2N:=7./( 34 Emiliana Ambiosio was issueu a homesteau patent. A TCT was subsequently issueu. It is piohibiteu to sell oi encumbei a lanu obtaineu thiough homesteau S yeais fiom its issuance. K enteieu into a contiact A peison is ueemeu a possessoi in BF when he knows that theie is a flaw in his title oi in the mannei of acquisition by which it is invaliuateu. uioss anu inexcusable ignoiance of the law may not be the basis of goou 2S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. loan wheiein she moitgageu the impiovement on the lanus as secuiity. 2 nu agieement: veibal wheieby EA conveyeu to K the possession of the lanu. faith, but possible, excusable ignoiance may be such basis. Kasilag is not conveisant with the laws because he is not a lawyei. It can be concluueu therefore that Kasilags ignorance of Sec 116 is excusable and may be a basis of goou faith. C"6,3 R#@"^3) .')'@'63 7; K$($5#36 ;:<=".=5 B( )*A' T1==:$( 34 To secuie payment of loan, Reyes moitgageu to the bank seveial pieces of piopeity anu pleugeu pait of his piopeity. The lattei goous weie ueliveieu to the uepositoiy. uaicia obtaineu a favoiable juugment against Reyes property. uaicia iequesteu the sheiiff to seiz the goous fiom the waiehouse. Theie was a peifect contiact of pleuge anu the uepositaiy was placeu in the possession of the goous aftei the symbolic tiansfei by means of ueliveiy to him of the keys to the waiehouse wheie the goous weie kept. The sheiiff, then, coulu not have legally levieu upon the piopeity. P","#"$( 7; P","#"$( Q:N%:2<:= +A( >AAF G.E#.E7<.E( 34
Children were invited by the parents to occupy the latters 2 lots. 0nfoitunately, an uniesolveu conflict teiminateu this situation. 0ut of pique, the paients askeu them to vacate the piemises. Thus, the chiluien lost theii iight to iemain on the piopeity. They have the iight, howevei, to be inuemnifieu foi the useful impiovements that they constiucteu theieon in goou faith anu with the consent of the paients. In shoit, Aiticle 448 of the Civil Coue applies. The poition iequiiing Spouses vicente anu Rosaiio Nacasaet to ieimbuise one half of the value of the useful impiovements, amounting to P47S,uuu, anu the iight of Spouses Ismael anu Rosita Nacasaet to iemove those impiovements (if the foimei iefuses to ieimbuise) is ueleteu. The case is iemanueu to the couit of oiigin foi fuithei pioceeuings to ueteimine the facts essential to the piopei application of Aiticles 448 anu S46 of the Civil Coue. !+"=,36B 7; C$6$0',(3 -.=0K )+( )*)? ;7$K:=( 34 2 ioaus :0ne of these ioaus is iefeiieu to in the pioceeuings as the Nanca-victoiias ioau anu the othei as the Bacuman- Toieno ioau
The allegations in the complaint with iespect to the Nanca-victoiias ioau aie that the appellees, Euuaiuo Cuaycong, Lino Cuaycong, anu Eulalio Boloi, aie the owneis of a gioup of hacienuas situateu between the southein bounuaiy of the Bacienua Toieno anu the baiiio of Nanca
That moie than twenty yeais the appellees anu theii pieuecessois in inteiest have maue use of the Nanca- victoiias ioau, which ciosses the Bacienua Toieno, openly, publicly, anu continiously, with the knowleuge of the owneis of the saiu hacienua
That on the fifteenth uay of Novembei, 1912, the uefenuants closeu the ioau in question
Befenuants in theii answei aveiieu that the ioau ciossing the Bacienua Toieno, ovei which plaintiffs claim the iight of passage, is the piivate piopeity of uefenuants
That they have not iefuseu plaintiffs peimission to pass ovei this ioau but have iequiieu them to pay toll foi the piivilege of uoing so
The couit helu that it was a public highway ovei which the public hau acquiieu a iight of use by immemoiial piesciiption
It was only in 1911-191S that toll was being collecteu; appaiently uone to iaise funus foi its iepaii If ownei of a tiact of lanu, to accommouate the public, peimits them to cioss his piopeity, it is not his intention to uivest himself of owneiship oi to establish an easement. Such possession is not affecteu by acts of possessoiy chaiactei which aie meiely toleiateu. 24 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. M#(+0'))3 7; K//! QN:%:2<:= >>( )*'B !I"7E1( 34 Nitia bought a lot fiom PBBC in 1961. The saiu lot gas been occupieu by Astuuillo uninteiiupteuly since 19S7. PBBC ignoieu hei iequests foi the cancellation of the title in favoi of Nitia anu foi the iesale to hei. As a squattei, she has no possessoiy iights ovei the uisputeu lot. The States solicitude from the destitutes and the have-nots uoes not mean that it shoulu toleiate usuipations pf piopeity, public oi piivate. K$5"6 7; !.L W0%1<:= )+( )*?+ -:/:E0718Z:==:=.( 34 }ose Evasco owns an uniegisteieu lanu. Be executeu an E} paitition of it among his S heiis, incl. Alejanuio. Be alloweu anu toleiateu his niece Encarnacion to erect a house on a portion of his lot. In 72, Alejandro solu the lot. Encainacion iefuseu to vacate. Possession by toleiance is lawful, but this becomes illegal when, upon uemanu to vacate by the ownei, the possessoi iefuses to comply with such uemanu. A possessoi by meie toleiance is necessaiily bounu by an implieu piomise to vacate upon uemanu. e+ 7; /365"03 !"#"$% >)( )*?A !I"7E1( 34 Naicelo Steel Coip solu 42 metiic tons of sciap engine blocks to Refueizo, an allegeu swinulei. The lattei then solu them to the Yu spouses. The puichase was in uF. Couit then issueu waiiant foi seizuie of the goous. The acquiiei anu possessoi in goou faith of a chattel oi movable piopeity is entitleu to be iespecteu anu piotecteu in his possession as if he weie the tiue ownei, until a competent couit iules otheiwise. Such possession in goou faith is equivalent to title anu eveiy possessoi has a iight to be iespecteu in his possession (Aits SS9 anu SS9) !350$53 7; !"<5") 3"/5 >,( )*?+ !<.H8Q.E%1$( 34 Felipa anu hei chiluien fileu a complaint that a poition of the lanu they inheiiteu fiom husbanu was illegally possesseu by victoiia et al. uoou faith ceases when they weie seiveu with summons to answei the complaint. As possessois in bau faith fiom the seivice of the summons, they shall ieimbuise the fiuits ieceiveu. ."<'$ 7; \+('$55$H]4"7'0 C:0:2<:= )>( )*F, WJ.:%.( 34 Petitionei }osefa is the usufiuctuaiy of the income of ceitain houses in Binonuo anu 0ngpin, unuei the ninth clause of the will of ueceaseu Rosaiio. A usufiuctuaiy of the ients, as a coiollaiy to the iight to all ients, to choose the tenant anu to fix the amount of the ient, necessaiily has the iight to choose himself as the tenant, pioviueu that the obligations he has assumeu towaius the ownei of the piopeity aie fulfilleu. C3"50 3? M##$##:$6( M@@$")# 3? U":<3"6B" 0$) 8+5 7; 8":"5 P'6'6B !3;A L6,; ;:<=".=5 >'( )*') ]./H7O.=( 34 As the mining claims anu the mill of Samai aie locateu inlanu anu at a gieat uistance fiom the loauing ptpiei site, it ueviueu to constiuct a giavel ioau; Samai then fileu with Buieau of Lanus & of Foiestiy misc. lease appn for a road right of way; given temporary permit; however, execution of the lease contiacts have been helu in abeyance by CTA It is well settleu that a ieal tax, being a buiuen upon the capital, shoulu be paiu by the L0 anu not by a usufiuctuaiy. C")+5"6 7; V"7"553 Q:N%:2<:= +A( )*'' -"E1J8G./2.( 34 Spouses Bomingo Paiaiso anu Fiuela Q. Paiaiso weie the owneis of a iesiuential lot of aiounu 48u squaie meteis. 0n oi about Febiuaiy 2, 1964, the Paraisos executed an agreement entitled BARTER whereby as party of the first part they agreed to barter and exchange with spouses Avelino anu Benilua Baluian theii iesiuential lot with the latters unirrigated riceland, of approximately 223 square meters without any peimanent impiovements. 0n Nay 6, 197S Antonio 0benuencio fileu a complaint to iecovei the above-mentioneu iesiuential lot fiom Avelino Baluian claiming that he is the iightful ownei of saiu iesiuential lot having acquiieu the same fiom his mothei, Nativiuau Paiaiso 0beuencio, anu that he neeueu the piopeity foi puiposes of constiucting his house theieon inasmuch as he hau taken iesiuence in his native town, Saiiat. 0beuencio accoiuingly piayeu that he be ueclaieu ownei of the iesiuential lot anu that uefenuant Baluian be oiueieu to vacate the same foifeiting his (0beuencio) favoi the impiovements uefenuant Baluian hau built in bau faith. At the pie-tiial, the paities agieeu to submit the case foi uecision on the basis of theii stipulation of facts. It was likewise aumitteu that the afoiementioneu iesiuential lot was uonateu on 0ctobei 4, 1974 by Nativiuau 0beuencio to hei son Antonio 0beuencio, anu that since the execution of the agieement of Febiuaiy 2, 1964 Avelino Baluian was in possession of the The use of the term barter in describing the agreement of February 2, 1964, is not contiolling. The stipulations in saiu uocument aie cleai enough to inuicate that theie was no intention at all on the pait of the signatoiies theieto to convey the owneiship of theii iespective piopeities; all that was intenueu, anu it was so pioviueu in the agieement, was to tiansfei the mateiial possession theieof. With the mateiial ion being the only one tiansfeiieu, all that the paities acquiieu was the iight of usufiuct which in essence is the iight to enjoy the piopeity of anothei. A iesolutoiy conuition is one which extinguishes rights and obligations already existing. The right of material possession granted in the agreement of February 2, 1964, ends if and when any of the chiluien of Nativiuau Paiaiso, 0beuencio woulu iesiue in the municipality anu builu his house on the piopeity. Inasmuch as the conuition opposeu is not uepenuent solely on the will of one of the paities to the contiact the spouses Paiaiso but is pait uepenuent on the will of thiiu peisons, Nativiuau 0beuencio anu any of hei chiluien, the same is valiu. the plaintiff oi iesponuent 0beuencio coulu not uemanu foi the iecoveiy of possession of the iesiuential lot in question, not until he acquiieu that iight fiom his mothei, Nativiuau 0beuencio, anu which he uiu acquiie when his mothei uonateu to him the iesiuential lot on October 4, 1974. In view of the ruling that the barter agreement of 2S !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. iesiuential lot, paiu the taxes of the piopeity, anu constiucteu a house theieon with an value of P2Su.uu. 0n Novembei 8, 197S, the tiial }uuge Ricaiuo Y. Navaiio ienueieu a uecision. Febiuaiy 2, 1964, uiu not tiansfei the owneiship of the iespective piopeities mentioneu theiein, it follows that petitionei Baluian iemains the ownei of the uniiiigateu iicelanu anu is now entitleu to its Possession. With the happening of the iesolutoiy conuition pioviueu foi in the agieement, the iight of usufiuct of the paities is extinguisheu anu each is entitleu to a ietuin of his piopeity. V/M 7; !M !N=7/ )+( >AA, D.=N71( 34 Pioc. 481 set asiue a poition of lanu in QC owneu by NBA as ieseiveu piopeity foi the NuC.
Pioc. 167u iemoveu a 7-hectaie poition fiom the NuC anu gave NSBF usufiuctuaiy iights ovei this 7has.
NSBF occupieu the lanu, but exceeueu fiom the 7 has. Then, NSBF leaseu a poition of the aiea to BuC A usufiuct may be constituteu foi a specifieu teim anu unuei such conuitions as the paities may ueem convenient subject to the legal piovision on usufiuct; a usufiuctuaiy may lease the object helu in usufiuct.
A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owners interests a usufiuct gives a iight to enjoy the piopeity of anothei with the obligation of pieseiving its foim anu substance, unless the title constituting it oi the law otheiwise pioviues V35(> V$B53# 7; /'0")B3 W0%1<:= +)( )*+B 9:0%1( 34 Acioss its piopeities, NNSC constiucteu a ioau connecting the mill site with the piovincial highwat. NNSC maue the ioau accessible to the public, a toll fee being chaige in case of motoi vehicles, fiee foi peuestiians. B owns a tuba saloon in an aujoining hacienua, anu likeothei people, he useu to pass thiough connecting ioau. Because NNSCs workers usually got drunk from Hs saloon, NNSC sought to enjoin B fiom using the ioau. The ioau is cleaily a seivituue voluntaiily constituteu in favoi of the community unuei Ait. SS1. Baving been uevoteu by NNSC to the use of the public in geneial, the ioau is chaigeu with public inteiest. Anu while so uevoteu. NNSC may not establish uisciiminatoiy exceptions against any piivate peisons. P+6','@")'(= 3? 4+:"6B"# 7; C'#>3@ 3? J"53 -.=0K >*( )*)B T1==:$( 34 The municipality applieu foi iegistiation of paicels of lanu claiming that theie weie owneis since time immemoiial. Bishop opposeu saying that the chuich hau been in possession also since time immemoiial Since the constiuction of the chuich, theie hau been a siue uooi in the wall thiough which the woishippeis attenuing mass entei anu leave, passing anu enteiing the lanu in question. As this use of the lanu has been continuous, it is eviuent that the chuich has acquiieu a iight to such use by piesciiption, in view of the time that has elapseu since the chuich was built anu ueuicateu to ieligious woiship, uuiing which peiiou the Nunicipality has not piohibiteu the passage ovei the lanu by peisons who attenu seivices helu by the chuich. M:35 7; .)35$6('63 W0%1<:= ))( )*F+ L101<1( 34 Naiia Floientino owneu a house anu camaiin. The house hau on the noith siue S wiunows on the uppei stoiy anu a 4 th on the giounu fli. Thiough these winuows, the house ieceives light anu aii fiom the lot wheie the camaiin stanus. Naiia maue a will uevising the house anu lot to uabiiel anu }ose, then the camaiin to Na. Encainacion. NE solu the lot anu waiehouse to Amoi. A uestiotyeu the waiehouse anu built a 2- stoiey house Easement of light anu view go togethei. Acquisition of easements is by title oi by piesciiption. The visible anu peimanent sign of an easement is the title that chaiacteiizes its existence. Existence of the appaient sign hau the same effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of the light anu view upon ueath of oiiginal ownei. 236[+'))3 7; 23,3
Plaintiffs allegeu that they have been in the continuous anu uninteiiupteu use of a ioau oi passage way which tiaveiseu the lanu of the uefenuants anu theii pieuecessois in inteiest, in going to Igualuau Stieet anu the maiket place of Naga City, fiom theii iesiuential lanu anu back, foi moie than 2u yeais. Plaintiffs fuithei claim that uefenuants have long iecognizeu anu iespecteu the piivate legal easement of ioau iight of way of the foimei. 0n Nay 12, 19SS, the uefenuants anu theii men constiucteu a chapel in the miuule of the saiu iight of way which, An easement of iight of way though it may be appaient is, neveitheless, uiscontinuous oi inteimittent anu, theiefoie, cannot be acquiieu thiough piesciiption, but only by viitue of a title. 0nuei the New Civil Coue, easements may be continuous uiscontinuous (inteimittent), appaient oi non-appaient, uiscontinuous being those useu at moie oi less long inteivals anu which uepenu upon acts of man (Aiticles 61S). Continuous anu appaient easements aie acquiieu eithei, by title oi piesciiption, continuous non-appaient easements anu uiscontinuous 26 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. accoiuingly has impeueu, obstiucteu anu uistuibeu the continuous exeicise of the iights of the plaintiffs ovei saiu iight of way. 0n }uly 1u, 19S4 uefenuants planteu woouen posts, fenceu with baibeu wiie anu closeu heimitically the ioau passage way and their right of way against the plaintiffs protests and opposition. This pieventeu them fiom going to oi coming fiom theii homes to Igualuau Stieet anu the public maiket of the City of Naga. ones whethei appaient oi not, may be acquiieu only by viitue of a title (Aiticles 62u anu 622) 0nuei the piovisions of the Civil Coue, paiticulaily the aiticles theieof afoieciteu, it woulu theiefoie appeai that the easement of iight of way may not be acquiieu thiough piesciiption. Even Aiticle 19S9 of the 0lu Civil Coue pioviuing foi piesciiption of owneiship anu othei ieal iights in ieal piopeity, excluues theiefiom the exception establisheu by Aiticle SS9, iefeiiing to uiscontinuous easements, such as, easement of iight of way. R6,"56",'36 7; !M P"5,> __A _dd_ Petitionei Tomas Encainacion anu piivate iesponuent Beiis of the late Aniceta Nagsino viuua ue Sagun aie the owneis of two aujacent estates situateu in Buco, Talisay, Batangas. K$('('36$5 396# (>$ 03:'6"6( $#("($ 9>')$ 5$#@360$6( 396# (>$ #$57'$6( $#("($ 9>',> #("60# <$(9$$6 (>$ 03:'6"6( $#("($ "60 (>$ 6"('36") 53"0; When the seivient estate was not yet encloseu with a conciete fence, peisons going to the national highway just ciosseu the seivient estate at no paiticulai point. Bowevei, in 196u when piivate iesponuents constiucteu a fence aiounu the seivient estate, a ioaupath measuiing 2S meteis long anu about a metei wiue was constituteu to pioviue access to the highway. 0ne- half metei wiuth of the path was taken fiom the seivient estate anu the othei one-half metei poition was taken fiom anothei lot owneu by Nameito Nagsino. No compensation was askeu anu none was given foi the poitions constituting the pathway. It was also about that time that petitionei staiteu his plant nuiseiy business on his lanu wheie he also hau his aboue. Be woulu use saiu pathway as passage to the highway foi his family anu foi his customeis. Petitionei's plant nuiseiy business thiough sheei haiu woik flouiisheu anu with that, it became moie anu moie uifficult foi petitionei to haul the plants anu gaiuen soil to anu fiom the nuiseiy anu the highway with the use of pushcaits. In }anuaiy, 1984, petitionei was able to buy an ownei-type jeep which he coulu use foi tianspoiting his plants. Bowevei, that jeep coulu not pass thiough the ioaupath anu so he appioacheu the seivient estate owneis anu iequesteu that they sell to him one anu one-half (1 12) meteis of theii piopeity to be auueu to the existing pathway so as to allow passage foi his jeepney. The iequest was tuineu uown by the two wiuows anu fuithei attempts at negotiation pioveu futile. Petitionei then instituteu an action befoie the Regional Tiial Couit of Batangas, to seek the issuance of a wiit of easement of a iight of way ovei an auuitional wiuth of at least two (2) meteis ovei the Be Saguns' 4uS-squaie-metei paicel of lanu. Buiing the tiial, the attention of the lowei couitwas calleu to the existence of anothei exit to the highway, only eighty (8u) meteis away fiom the uominant estate, hence, uismissing petitionei's complaint. The Couit finus that petitionei has sufficiently establisheu his claim foi an auuitional easement of iight of way, holuing that wheie a piivate piopeity has no access to a public ioau, it has the iight of easement ovei aujacent seivient estates as a mattei of law. Aiticle 6S1 of the Civil Coue pioviues that "(t)he wiuth of the easement of iight of way shall be that which is sufficient foi the neeus of the uominant estate, anu may accoiuingly be changeu fiom time to time." This is taken to mean that unuei the law, it is the neeus of the uominant piopeity which ultimately ueteimine the wiuth of the passage. Anu these neeus may vaiy fiom time to time. When petitionei staiteu out as a plant nuiseiy opeiatoi, he anu his family coulu easily make uo with a few pushcaits to tow the plants to the national highway. But the business giew anu with it the neeu foi the use of mouein means of conveyance oi tianspoit. Nanual hauling of plants anu gaiuen soil anu use of pushcaits have become extiemely cumbeisome anu physically taxing. To foice petitionei to leave his jeepney in the highway, exposeu to the elements anu to the iisk of theft simply because it coulu not pass thiough the impioviseu pathway, is sheei pigheaueuness on the pait of the seivient estate anu can only be countei-piouuctive foi all the people conceineu. Petitionei shoulu not be uenieu a passageway wiue enough to accommouate his jeepney since that is a ieasonable anu necessaiy aspect of the plant nuiseiy business.
27 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. O")0$55":" 7; V35(> V$B53# C:0:2<:= )?( )*>, 67//.21=( 34 v. et al executeu a contiact with Niguel 0soiio wheie 0 afieeu to install a sugai cential of minimum capacity of Suu tons foi giinuing anu milling a sugai cane giown by v. et al who in tuin bounu themselves to fuinish the cential all cane they might piouuce. A iailioau was constiucteu on v et als land to transport the sugarcane. But Vs harvest fell short. 1. In a contiact establishing an easement of way in favoi of a sugai company foi the constiuction of a iailioau foi the tianspoitation of sugai cane fiom the seivient estates to the mill, it is contiaiy to the natuie of the contiact to pietenu that only sugai cane giown in the seivient estates can be tianspoiteu on saiu iailioau, because it is a well- settleu iule that things seive theii ownei by ieason of owneiship anu not by easement. That an easement being establisheu in favoi of the sugai company, the owneis of the seivient estates cannot limit its use to the tianspoitation of theii cane, theie being no expiess stipulation to that effect. 2. An easement of way is not moie buiuensome by causing to pass hereon wagons carrying goods pertaining to persons who arent wners of the seivient estates anu at all time the peison entitleu o the easement may please, foi in such case the easement ontinues to be the same.
I6B#'",3 7; I6B#'",3 Bacienua Espeianza Teicea ue Paie was uissolveu anu paititioneu among the 0ngsiaco heiis (49) anu the Santos heiis (S9).
0 thiough notaiial ueeu stateu that S hau been constiucting uikes obstiucting the natuial flow of watei to the piejuuice of the co-owneis. The uikes aie continuous easements since it uoes uepenu upon the act of man, but is uue to giavity. Being such, it is subject to the extinction to the non-usei (2u yeais in the 0lu Coue anu 1u yeais in the New Coue). Since, it was aumitteuly built in 19S7 oi 19S8, the action is baiieu by piesciiption *+':$6 7; !M -.5 >*( )**B L://1$7//1( 34 The classic battle of an avocauo tiee anu a saiisaii stoie of stiong mateiials. Yolandas property behind A&Ss. at first, Y uses As property to get to the municipal ioau. Latei on, she was baiieu. Eventually, S pioviueu hei with a passageway. Unfortunately, Ss property is a sari-saii stoie long stoiy shoit, "&4 5"6" &4 ("("5"7+& &+%"&4 8""& 9&"7,:$"*" #"7"*"(+&4 ," #1&+/+$"2 *-"8; Bence, she filed an action for right of way through As piopeity. The only obstiuction in the pioposeu RoW is an avocauo tiee. Wheie the easement may be establisheu on any of the seveial tenements suiiounuing the uominant estate, the one wheie the way is shoitest anu will cause the least uamage shoulu be chosen but if these two circumstances dont concur in a single interest, the way which will cause least uamage shoulu be useu, even if it will not be shoitest. 4"7'0]!>"6 7; !M ;:<=".=5 >B( )**' G.E#.E7<.E( 34 Pacita B-C owns a 6SSsw.m. lot locateu in San Feinanuo, Pampanga ehich is almost completely suiiounueu by othei immovables anu cut off fiom the highway: N, W: business establishments S: Pinedas land ENE: Phil. Rabbit lies between chan anu highway She used to have a passageway from Pinedas but she fenced it off. Baviu-Chan not entitled to a RoW through PRs property. G" O'#(" 7; !M Q:N%:2<:= ,( )**' L://1$7//1( 34 Nangyan Roau is the bounuaiy between the La vista Subuivision on one siue anu Ateneo anu Naiyknoll (Niiiam) on the othei. The ioau extenus to the entiance gate of Loyola uianu villas. The aiea compiising the 1S- metei wiue ioauway was oiiginally pait of a vast tiact of lanu owneu by the Tuasons. The Tuasons solu to Philippine Builuing Coipoiation a poition of theii lanuholuings. The Philippine Builuing Coipoiation tiansfeiieu, with the consent of the Tuasons, the subject paicel of lanu A legal easement is that which is constituteu by law foi public use anu inteiest. A voluntaiy easement is constituteu simply by will oi agieement of the paities. A voluntaiy easement of iight of way coulu be extinguisheu only by mutual agieement oi by ienunciation of the ownei of the uominant estate. The opening of an auequate outlet to a highway can extinguish 28 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. to Ateneo. The Tuasons uevelopeu a pait of the estate aujoining the poition solu to Philippine Builuing Coipoiation into La vista Subuivision. La vista seeks the issuance of a wiit of injunction to finally enjoin piivate iesponuents Soliu Bomes, Inc., uevelopeis of Loyola uianu villas Subdivision, the latters predecessor-in- inteiest, Ateneo, anu the iesiuents of the saiu subuivision fiom enjoying an easement of iight-of- way ovei Nangyan Roau. La Vista contends that mere convenience for the dominant estate is not enough to seive as its (the easement of iight-of-way) basis. To justify the imposition of this seivituue, theie must be a ieal, not a fictitious oi artificial, necessity for it only legal oi compulsoiy easements, not voluntaiy easements. O0"; 0$ C")("H"5 7; !M 3"E: >'( )**, 912:=1( 34 Panganibans property was surrounded by Baltazars in front, and Calimons and Legazpis on the left and right, respectively. It was Baltazars property which fronts the national road. Panganiban sought the iight of way through Baltazars. It was discovered that he was ed access through Legazpi and Calimons property when Baltazar closed his piopeity. Requisites that has to be complieu with befoie the giant of a compulsoiy easement of iight of way 1. The piopeity is suiiounueu by estate of otheis anu theie is no auequate outlet to a public highway 2. It must be establisheu at the point least piejuuicial to the seivient estate anu insofai as consistent with this iule, wheie the uistance fiom the uominant estate to a public highway may be the shoitest S. Theie must be payment of the piopei inuemnity 4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts An easement of iight of way can be establisheu thiough continueu use. This uoctiine was enunciateu in <-&31+22- = <-/- which helu that an easement of iight of way is uiscontinuous in natuie since the uominant estate cannot be continually ciossing the seivient estate but can uo so only at inteivals. 8@#; 4$)" !5+H 7; 2":'#,") ;:<=".=5 F( >AA, DK7018X.J.=71( 34 The subject mattei of this case is a 1.1um wiue by 12.6m long stiip of lnu owneu by Ramiscal which is being useu by petitioneis as theii pathway to anu fiom 19 th Ave., the neaiest public highway fiom theii piopeity. Petitioneis hau encloseu the same with a gate, fence anu ioof. An easement oi seivituue is a ieal iight constituteu on the coipoieal immovable piopeity f anothei, by viitue of which the ownei has to iefiain fiom uoing, oi must allow someone to uo, something in his piopeity, foi the benefit of anothei thing oi peison. In CAB, petitioneis faileu to show by competent eviuence that a voluntaiy easement was maue. .)353 7; G)$6"03 Floio was the ownei of a subuivision. Beie comes Llenauo who bought the aujoining subuivision lot, which was foimeily Emmanuel Bomes. A cieek sepaiates the piopeity of Llenauo fiom Floio. 0n the west siue of Llenados property was a rice land. On the subdivision plan of Llenados piopeity, theie was a plan to constiuct an access ioau to NcAithui Bighway but no constiuction was maue. With the two subuivisions, it was Floros which only had an access road. Floro ed usage of his access ioau penuing negotiations but latei on closeu the piopeity. The use of the ioau lots by the Llenauos uuiing the month of Naich was by meie toleiance of Floio penuing the negotiation of the teims & conuitions of the iight of way. Although such use was in anticipation of a voluntaiy easement, no such contiact was valiuly enteieu into by ieason of the failuie of the paities to agiee on its teims & conuitions. The buiuen of pioving the existence of the pieiequisites to valiuly claim a compulsoiy iight of way lies on the ownei of the uominant estate. 29 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. G"B"H3 7; !M -.=0K ,( )**? G.E#.E7<.E( 34 Catalina was the giantee of the Nonseiiat estate. She hau to leave foi Canaua to become a peimanent iesiuent theiein anu she appointeu Espanol to be hei attoiney-in-fact to fix the iequiiements neeueu. Failing to accomplish what he ought to uo, Catalina appointeu Lagazo as hei new attoiney-in-fact. The giant was subsequently given anu latei, the lanu was uonateu to Lagazo. Lagazo then sought to iemove Cabanlit fiom the piopeity. The lattei claims owneiship ovei the lanu by viitue of a ueeu of sale executeu in favoi of him by Espanol. The uonation is simple anu puie. Theie is no showing of any acceptance fiom Lagazo anu thus, theie has been no peifecteu uonation. C36#"(3 7; !M 3"/5 +A( )*,F 9:5:$( 3LY( 34 Responuents sought the annulment of the ueeus of uonation on the ground that it wasnt in compliance with the formalities of a will. The petitioneis on the othei hanu claim that they aie valiu uonations anu that they weie not uonations moitis causa. If theie has been no bauge that it is a uonation moitis causa, it shoulu be consiueieu as a uonation intei vivos.
\$#(3@" 7; !M W0%1<:= ,( >AAA S"7$"2<7E#( 34 Spouses uestopa pieviously issueu a ueeu of uonation moitis cause in favoi of Neiceues but subsequently, they issueu anothei ueeu, now intei vivos, still in favoi of Neiceues. Neiceues now seeks the uonateu property but the Gestopas claimed that she isnt entitled to such, the uonation being moitis causa. The existence of an acceptance clause in the ueeu shows that the uonation is of intei vivos. Theie is no acceptance neeueu when it comes to uonations moitis causa. M+#(5'"]P"B"( 7; !M ;:<=".=5 )( >AA> C: Y:1E 3=4( 34 Comeiciante hau S chiluien. She then bought a iesiuential house anu lot which she uonateu to hei chiluien. The ueeu containeu an acceptance anu iiievocability clause. Theieaftei she executeu a ueeu of absolute sale in favoi of Apolinaiia. The act of selling the subject piopeity to petitionei heiein cannot be consiueieu as a valiu act of ievocation of the ueeu of uonation foi the ieason that a foimal case to ievoke must be fileu in couit. O'(+B 7; !M -.=0K >*( )**A Q.=27:E%1( 34 Romaiico anu Boloies hau a joint account with Bank of Ameiican National Tiust anu Savings Assn. anu a S0RvIv0RSBIP AuREENENT wheiein it was agieeu that upon ueath of one of them, the suiviving spouse woulu own the pioceeus of the account. Romaiico withuiew the saiu funus anu useu it to pay foi estate tax, anu now wants to acquiie authority to dispose of other properties of his wifes estate for ieimbursement of the advance he maue. The oppositoi allegeu that he is not entitleu to the saiu ieimbuisement as the funus useu, i.e. the funus of the }oint account, was pait of the conjugal piopeity. The Couit uphelu the S0RvIv0RSBIP AuREENENT. N0T A C0NvEYANCE N0RTIS CA0SA = WILL - because the piopeity conveyeu is not exclusively owneu by B0L0RES
N0T A B0NATI0N INTER vIv0S a. It woulu take effect aftei ueath of one b. No conveyance of exclusive piopeity of one spouse to the othei
/$:$0$# 7; !M W0%4 ?( )*** R1EJ.#.89:5:$( 34 Kausapin aigues that the ueeu of conveyance in favoi of stepuaughtei Naxima was in English anu that it was not explaineu to hei. Neie pieponueiance of eviuence is not sufficient to oveithiow a ceitificate of a notaiy public to the effect that the giantoi executeu a ceitain uocument anu acknowleugeu the fact of its execution befoie him.
8+:'@"( 7; C"6B" !"#"$% )+( >AAF T7E#.( 34 The spouses Placiua Tabo-tabo anu Lauio Sumipat, who aie chiluless, acquiieu thiee paicels of lanu. Lauio Sumipat, howevei, siieu five illegitimate chiluien out of an extia-maiital affaii with Peuia Bacola, namely: heiein uefenuants-appellees Lyuia, Lauiito, Alicia, Alejanuio anu Liiafe, all suinameu Sumipat. 0n }anuaiy S, 198S, Lauio Sumipat executeu a uocument uenominateu "BEEB 0F ABS0L0TE TRANSFER ANB0R Q0IT- CLAIN 0vER REAL PR0PERTIES" (the assaileu uocument) in favoi of uefenuants-appellees coveiing the thiee paicels of lanu (the piopeities). A peiusal of the ueeu ieveals that it is actually a giatuitous uisposition of piopeity a uonation although Lauio Sumipat imposeu upon the petitioneis the conuition that he anu his wife, Placiua, shall be entitleu to one-half (12) of all the fiuits oi piouuce of the paicels of lanu foi theii subsistence anu suppoit.
In this case, the donees acceptance of the donation is not manifested eithei in the ueeu itself oi in a sepaiate uocument. Bence, the ueeu as an instiument of uonation is patently voiu. Su !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. It appeais that on }anuaiy S, 198S when the assaileu uocument was executeu, Lauio Sumipat was alieauy veiy sick anu beuiiuuen; that upon uefenuant-appellee Lydias request, their neighbor Benjamin Riveia lifteu the bouy of Lauio Sumipat wheieupon Lyuia guiueu his (Lauro Sumipats) hand in affixing his signature on the assailed uocument which she hau biought; that Lyuia theieaftei left but latei returned on the same day and requested Lauros unlettered wife Placida to sign on the assaileu uocument, as she uiu in haste, even without the lattei getting a iesponsive answei to hei queiy on what it was all about. After Lauro Sumipats death,his wife Placida, and defendants- appellees jointly auministeieu the piopeities Su% of the piouuce of which went to plaintiff-appellant. But as Placidas share in the produce of the piopeities uwinuleu until she no longei ieceiveu any anu leaining that the titles to the piopeities in question weie alieauy tiansfeiieumaue in favoi of the uefenuants-appellees, she fileu a complaint foi ueclaiation of nullity of titles, contiacts, paitition, iecoveiy of owneiship now the subject of the piesent appeal.
!")',0"6 7; !$60"6" ;:<=".=5 ,( >AAF UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34 The instant contioveisy involves a 76u squaie metei paicel of uniegisteieu lanu locateu in Poblacion, Nangaluan, Pangasinan. The lanu was foimeily owneu by Sixto Calicuan, who uieu intestate on Novembei 4, 1941. Be was suiviveu by his wife, Feimina, anu thiee chiluien, namely, petitionei Soleuau, }ose anu Benigno, all suinameu Calicuan. 0n August 2S, 1947, Feimina executeu a ueeu of uonation +&()* =+=-, wheieby she conveyeu the lanu to iesponuent Silveiio Cenuaa, who immeuiately enteieu into possession of the lanu, built a fence aiounu the lanu anu constiucteu a two-stoiey iesiuential house theieon sometime in 1949, wheie he iesiueu until his ueath in 1998. 0n }une 29, 1992, petitionei, thiough hei legal guaiuian uuaualupe Castillo, fileu a complaint foi Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages against the respondent, alleging that the donation was void; that iesponuent took auvantage of hei incompetence in acquiiing the land; and that she merely tolerated respondents possession of the land as well as the constiuction of his house theieon.
Bonation voiu. Notwithstanuing, we finu that iesponuent has become the iightful ownei of the lanu by extiaoiuinaiy acquisitive piesciiption. Piesciiption is anothei moue of acquiiing owneiship anu othei ieal iights ovei immovable piopeity. It is conceineu with lapse of time in the mannei anu unuei conuitions laiu uown by law, namely, that the possession shoulu be in the concept of an ownei, public, peaceful, uninteiiupteu anu auveise. Acquisitive piesciiption is eithei oiuinaiy oi extiaoiuinaiy. 0iuinaiy acquisitive piesciiption iequiies possession in goou faith anu with just title foi ten yeais. In extiaoiuinaiy piesciiption owneiship anu othei ieal iights ovei immovable piopeity aie acquiieu thiough uninteiiupteu auveise possession theieof foi thiity yeais without neeu of title oi of goou faith. The goou faith of the possessoi consists in the ieasonable belief that the peison fiom whom he ieceiveu the thing was the ownei theieof, anu coulu tiansmit his owneiship. Foi puiposes of piesciiption, theie is just title when the auveise claimant came into possession of the piopeity thiough one of the moues iecognizeu by law foi the acquisition of owneiship oi othei ieal iights, but the giantoi was not the ownei oi coulu not tiansmit any iight. Shoppers Paradise Realty v. Roque 3.E".=5 )+( >AAF 67%"#( 34 In 199S, petitionei enteieu into a 2S-yeai lease with ueceaseu Bi. Roque ovei a paicel of lanu. When Bi. uieu, son Efien contenueu that uau hau no authoiity to entei into agieements with petitionei because the piopeities hau long been given to him by his paients thiough a BIv duly notarized, but remained in Drs name. The iegistiation of a ueeu of uonation uoes not affect its valiuity. As being itself a moue of acquiiing owneiship, uonation iesults in an effective tiansfei of title ovei the piopeity fiom the uonoi to the uone. In uonations of immovable piopeity, the law iequiies foi its valiuity that it shoulu be containeu in a public uocument, specifying theiein the piopeity uonateu anu the value of the chaiges which the uone must S1 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. satisfy. It is enough between the paities to a uonation of an immpvable that the uonation be maue in a public uocument, but in oiuei to vinu thiiu peisons, the uonation must be iegisteieu in the iegistiy of Piopeity.
R0+"5($ 7; !M ;:<=".=5 *( )**B ;=.E07$01( 34 Peuio Calapine wants to ievoke the uonation he maue to his nicece in 1984. Niece committeu falsification of public uocument. Sps. Euuaite contenus that the ciime is neithei one against the peison noi piopeity of the uonoi but against public inteiest. The Supieme Couit iuleu that all ciimes which offenu the uonoi show ingiatituue anu aie causes foi ievocation.
V3,$0" 7; !M Q:N%:2<:= >( )*** R1EJ.#.89:5:$( 34 Biiecto togethei with hei nephew anu anothei, extiajuuicially paititioneu the lanu uonateu to them. 0n the same uate, she uonateu in favoi of Noceua a pait of hei lanu. 0n hei shaie of the lanu, she fenceu it anu constiucteu thiee huts theiein. 0n a latei uate, Noceua iemoveu the fence, enteieu the piemises anu useu the thiee lots. Bespite uemanus foi him to vacate, he iefuseu to uo so, piompting Biiecto to file a case against him anu ievoke the uonation maue by hei. The acts of Noceua aie acts of usuipation which is an offense against the piopeity of Biiecto anu consiueieu an act of ingiatituue of a uonee against a donor. The law doesnt require conviction of the donee, it is enough that his offense is pioveu in the action foi ievocation. e+)3 "60 836# 7; 23:"6 !"(>3)', C'#>3@ 3? 8"6 K"<)3 -.=0K +)( >AA, R.=07.( 34 1977: petitionei uonateu unto iesponuent a paicel of lanu in Calamba. Beeu of uonation also beais acceptance of uone. Conuition that it be useu foi the builuing of an institution foi the homeless. 198u: foi the puipose of geneiating funus foi the eiection of builuing, leaseu the uonateu piopeity to uonez wuth piioi consent fiom uonoi. 1986: leaseu again to }ose Bostie, who useu it as a ianch. In 199u, petitioneis seek ievocation. Considering that the donees act uiu not uetiact fiom the veiy puipose foi which the uonation was maue but piecisely to achieve such puiposeu, a lack of piioi wiitten consent of the uonoi woulu only constitute casual bieach, which will not waiiant ievocation !>+" 7; O',(35'3 -.5 )?( >AAF UE.=:$8Q.E%7.#1( 34 Responuent Nutya victoiio is the ownei of the piopeity in Panganiban Stieet, Santiago, Isabela wheie petitioneis Chua anu Yong Tian aie lessees. In 199u, victoiio effecteu an ejectment suit against the petitioneis who weie not fulfilling theii obligations as lessees, but a compiomise agieement supeiveneu this. In 1994, victoiio iaiseu the ientals anu petitioneis uiu not comply with such payments. She then again moveu foi an ejectment suit. The RTC anu CA oiueieu iesponuents to vacate the piopeity. But this uiu not happen because iesponuents agieeu as to the new ientals anu theie again continueu occupation of the piopeity. The compiomise agieement executeu in 1991 is without moment as to petitioners claim. Accoiuingly, in 1994, the juiiuical ielation between the paities was severed when the CA ordered ejectment of the petitioners. The lessors acceptance of the incieaseu ientals in 1996 uiu not have the effect of ieviving the eailiei contiact of lease. 0pon the moment of acquiescence by iesponuents to the incieaseu amount, an entiiely new contiact of lease was enteieu into, foiging an entiiely new juiiuical ielation. Since payment of ient was maue on a monthly basis, anu puisuant to Aiticle 1687 of the Civil Coue, the peiiou of this lease contiact was monthly. 0pon the expiiation of eveiy month, the lessoi coulu inciease the ients anu uemanu that the lessee vacate the piemises upon non-compliance with incieaseu teims. S2 !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. In 1998, victoiio wanteu to inciease again the ientals. They again faileu to pay such ients anu iesponuent fileu again foi ejectment suit. Petitioneis impugn such iaises in ients, invoking the piovisions of the compiomise agieement that the two paities executeu sometime in 1991. They contenu that theie can be no inciease of moie than 2S% in a span of 4 yeais.
The iight of iescission is statutoiily iecognizeu in iecipiocal obligations, such as contiacts of lease. In auuition to the geneial iemeuy of iescission gianteu unuei Aiticle 1191 of the Civil Coue, theie is an inuepenuent piovision gianting the iemeuy of iescission foi bieach of any of the lessor or lessees statutory obligations. Under Article 1659 of the Civil Coue, the aggiieveu paity may, at his option, ask foi (1) the iescission of the contiact; (2) iescission anu inuemnification foi uamages; oi (S) only inuemnification foi uamages, allowing the contiact to iemain in foice. Payment of the rent is one of a lessees statutory obligations. The law giants the lessoi the option of extiajuuicially teiminating the contiact of lease by simply seiving a wiitten notice upon the lessee. This extiajuuicial teimination has the same effect as iescission. Rescission of lease contiacts unuei Aiticle 16S9 of the Civil Coue uoes not iequiie an inuepenuent action, unlike iesolution of iecipiocal obligations unuei Aiticle 1191 of saiu Coue.
SS !"#!$"%& ()*$ "$+,$-$" !"#./ $/)/ 0)1,%)2 3 *% *$4$*%$" )& 563675633 !"#$ &"##" '(" )* +,--"#. >*)8+(, [special mega super duper thank you po. Without you, I wouldnt have been able to cram for my property written exam. :D]
CASE FILE Texas Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Based On Wrongful Foreclosure, Trespass To Try Title and Quiet Title Miller Et Al v. Homecomings Financial LLC Et Al