Property - Batacan

PROPERTY REVIEWER 2012-2013 - Atty.
Batacan’s Notes By: Cham Cañete
BASIC PRINCIPLES
[LAW ON PROPERTY]
PROPERTY, classification of : (See Art. 414, NCC)
- Immovable or real property;

Compiled and edited by
- Movable or personal property.
ED C. BATACAN
Why is there importance to classify?

classify?
PROPERTY, concept of:
of:
Because different provisions of the law govern
the acquisition, possession, disposition, loss
(Civil law concept) – all things whether and registration of immovable and movable.
tangible [physical objects] or intangible
[rights] which are or may be the object of
appropriation.
appropriation. (see Art. 414 NCC ). For example :
a. Donations of real property (like land) must

be in a public instrument, otherwise the
alienation will be null and void even as between
It follows that those which cannot be the parties. On the other hand, the donation of
appropriated are not considered property. [i.e. a movable (like a ring valued at say P5,000.00),
stars, moon, air, planets, etc.] needs only to be in a private instrument. (see
Art. 748, NCC).
b. The ownership over a real property may be

However, in Escano vs. Gil [CA] February acquired by prescription (see Art. 1137) in 30
11, 1958, it was held that the right to office,
office, though years (bad faith); whereas, acquisition of
not a vested property right, in a technical sense, is personal property in bad faith needs only 8
property. An office may be considered as property years (see Art. 1132, NCC).
in controversies relating to the question as to which
of two persons is entitled thereto. c. Generally, to affect third persons,
transactions involving real property must be
recorded in the Registry of Property; this is not
so in the case of personal property.
In Minoza vs Great Pacific Life Assurance
Corp., July 21, 1986, it was held that the right of a
person to his labor is deemed to be property within
the meaning of constitutional guarantees. As it QUESTION:
QUESTION:
involves his means of livelihood, a person cannot be
May parties by agreement treat as personal
deprived therefore, of his labor or work without due
property that which by classification under
process of law.
the law be real property?
In Cornejo vs Gabriel, 41 Phil. 200, it was

Technically, it would seem that under the
ruled that property, under the due process clause of
Civil Code, it is only the LAW which may consider
the Constitution, includes the right to hold, occupy
certain real property (like growing crops) as
and exercise an office.
office. personal property for the purpose of making a
chattel mortgage. (See Art. 416, par.2). Also, for
purposes of taxation,
taxation, improvements on real property
What is appropriation?
appropriation? which are essentially movables may be considered
as subject to real property tax.
The New Civil Law Code does not
define what is appropriation, but it has been
considered as equivalent to occupation, which
is the willful apprehension of a corporeal However, in Evangelista vs Abad, 36 O.G.
object which has no owner, and with intent to 2913 and Navarro vs Pineda, 9 SCRA 631, the
acquire its ownership. Supreme Court ruled that a real property may be
treated as personal property provided that two
Page | 1
PROPERTY REVIEWER 2012-2013 - Atty. Batacan’s Notes By: Cham Cañete
conditions are met : a) the parties mutually agree to judgment,

judgment, the building or house shall be treated as
consider the real property [i.e. house], a real property, and therefore, the rule on foreclosure
personalty; and b) that no innocent third person of real estate mortgage must be followed.
shall be prejudiced thereby.
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
The validity of the chattel mortgage
Classes of Immovable:
constituted on a house cannot be questioned by the
owner of the house because he is placed under
estoppel from denying the existence of the chattel
mortgage.
IN GENERAL :
In TSAI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 366 SCRA

324, it was held that the nature of the disputed
machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or
cemented on the real property mortgaged, does not
make them ipso facto immovable under Article 415 a. Immovables by nature –
(3) and (5) of the New Civil Code, as the parties’
those which cannot be moved from place to
intent has to be looked into. While it is true that the
place because of their nature, such as land
controverted properties appear to be immobile, a
(par 1 Art. 415), mines, quarries and slag
perusal of the Contract of Real and Chatttel
dumps (par 8, Art. 415);
Mortgage executed by the parties show a contrary
indication.
b. Immovables by incorporation
In the case at bar, the intention of the parties is to - those which are essentially movables,
movables, but
treat the said machineries and equipment as are attached to an immovable in such
chattels.
chattels. The parties executed a Real Estate manner as to become an integral part
Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage, instead of just Real thereof. [Examples: those mentioned in
Estate Mortgage if indeed their intention is to treat par 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6, Art. 415, except land,
all the properties included therein as immovable. buildings and roads];
Also attached to the said contract is a separate “List
of Machineries and Equipment”. These facts evince
the conclusion that the parties intend to treat the
c. Immovables by destination
machineries as chattels.
- those which are essentially movables, but
by the purpose for which they have been
QUESTION : placed in an immovable, partake the
nature of the latter because of the added
utility derived therefrom, such as those
mentioned in pars 4, 6, 7 & 9 of Art. 415);
May a building subjected to a chattel

mortgage be sold extra-judicially in d. Immovables by analogy or by
accordance with the provisions of real estate law
mortgage law?
– those mentioned in par 10, Art. 415;
right of usufruct; easements and
servitudes;
In Luna va Encarnacion, 91 Phil 531, it was held that
a building subjected to chattel mortgage cannot be
sold extra-judicially under the provisions of Art. 3135
since the Article refers only to real estate mortgage.
SPECIFICALLY :
In Manarang vs Ofilada, 99 Phil 108, it was

ruled that auction sales on execution upon
Art. 415. The following are immovable
Page | 2
property: only made of stone. Railroad tracks or rails

come under this category.
PARAGRAPH 1:
1:
Wooden scaffoldings on which
Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all carpenters stand while constructing a house
kinds adhered to the soil. are merely personal property in view of the
lack of “adherence” to the soil or the intent to
permanently annex the same to the soil.
REMINDERS :
LAND
PARAGRAPH 2:
2:
Trees, plants and growing crops, while they

Land by its very nature is immovable. And are attached to the land or form an integral
even, if land is moved by an earthquake or an extra- part of an immovable.
ordinary happening, the land should still be
considered immovable. A truckload of soil [i.e.
garden soil] should be considered personal property
Trees and plants no matter what their size
since there is no longer adherence to the soil.
may be are considered real property.
Even if land is rented,

rented, it is still considered as By nature - if they are the spontaneous
immovable.
products of the soil, and by incorporation - if
they were planted thru labor.
BUILDINGS
But the moment they are detached or

Buildings of permanent structure are always uprooted from the land, they become personal
classified as immovable. property, except in the case of uprooted
timber, if the land is timberland, because
It is immaterial whether it is built on a rented or although no longer attached, the timber still
owned land. The nature of the building as property forms an “integral part” of the timberland.
does not depend on the way the parties deal with it
[see: Leung Yee vs Strong Machinery Co. 37 Phil.
664.] Rule on ungathered fruits :
Buildings are considered immovable 1. Even if the land is being leased by

provided they are more or less permanent another, and the fruits belong to the tenant,
substantially adhering to the land, and not mere the fruits are still considered as immovable
super-impositions on the law. In Luna vs because no exception or qualification is made
Encarnacion, it was held that a structure which is under the Civil Code.
merely superimposed on a land like a temporary
shelter for workers is not real or immovable
property.
In Sibal vs Valdez, 50 Phil 512, the
Supreme Court held that for purposes of
attachment and execution, and for purposes
CONSTRUCTIONS
of the Chattel Mortgage Law, ungathered
products have the nature of personal
property.
It is understood that the attachment
must be more or less permanent. A wall or a
fence are good examples of this kind of
PARAGRAPH 3:
3:
immovable by incorporation. As long as there
is an intent to permanently annex the same,
same, Everything attached to an immovable in a
it is immaterial whether the materials used is fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
Page | 3
separated therefrom without breaking the movables, irrespective of the intention of the
material or deterioration of the object. owner.
Under this paragraph, for the PARAGRAPH 4:

4:
incorporated thing to be considered real
property, the injury or breakage or Statues, reliefs, paintings or other
deterioration in case of separation, must be objects for use or ornamentation, placed in
substantial. [Examples: A fixed fire escape building or on land by the owner of the
stairway firmly embedded in the walls of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals
house; aqueduct; or a sewer or a well. the intention to attach them permanently to
the tenements.
In CBAA vs MERALCO, 119 Phil. 328, it

Par 4. - These are immovables both by
was ruled that the steel towers of MERALCO
incorporation and by destination.
destination.
not attached to an immovable in a fixed
manner are not realty and therefore, not
subject to realty tax. The towers can be
separated from the ground without breaking
or causing deterioration upon the object to
which they are attached. Examples:
Examples:
A fixed statue in the garden of the

house; a permanent painting on the ceiling; a
However, in CALTEX vs CBAA, 114 picture embedded in the concrete walls of a
SCRA 273, it was held that storage tanks house; a rug or carpet fastened to the floor
installed on land leased from Caltex are (wall-to-wall carpeting).
subject to realty tax, they being
improvements on realty.
The objects must be placed by the owner of
the immovable (buildings or lands) and not
In BERKENKOTTER vs Cu Unjieng, 61 necessarily the owner of the object.
Phil 683, it was ruled that machinery for
breweries utilized in the liquor or soft-drink
manufacturing, though movable in nature, are
If placed by a mere tenant, the objects must
immobilized by destination being essential to
remain chattels or personalty (See: Davao
said industry.
Sawmill vs. Castillo, 61 Phil 709).
In Mindanao Bus Co. vs City Assessor,

However, in Valdez vs. Central
116 Phil 501, it was held that machinery of a
Altagracia, 255 U.S. 58), it was held that
transportation company such as welding,
where the owner of a tenement entered into a
boring machine, lathe machine “sitting on a
contract with a lessee, stipulating that the
cement platform” which are not essential to
lessee shall place certain objects in the
the transportation business of the owner of
property leased, and that such objects shall
the tenement do not constitute realty.
remain with the property upon the
termination of the lease, without any
obligation on the part of the owner to
EFFECT OF SEPARATION : reimburse the lessee, the tenant acts as an
agent of the owner in giving by contract a
permanent destination to them.
If the thing incorporated is temporarily
removed with the intention to replace the
same, the thing is considered as personal EFFECT OF SEPARATION
property because the incorporation had
ceased. The material fact of incorporation or
separation is what determines the condition
In Ago vs Court of Appeals,
Appeals, 6 SCRA 530,
of the tenement, it recovers its status as
it was held that the moment these objects are
Page | 4
separated from the land or building or from the equipment in question in the central converted them
industry or works, they regain back their condition into real property by reason of their purpose, it
as personal property. cannot be said that their incorporation therewith
was not permanent in character because, as
essential and principal elements of a sugar central,
without them the sugar central would be unable to
PARAGRAPH 5:
5:
function or carry on the industrial purpose for which
Machinery, receptacles, instruments, or it was established. The new machinery must,
implements intended by the owner of the therefore, be considered as subject to the real
tenement for an industry or works which may estate mortgage in favor of the defendant.”
be carried on in a building or on a piece of
land, and which tend directly to meet the
needs of the said industry or works. Effect of separation.
separation.
If the machines are still in the building,

but no longer used in the industry conducted
These are immovables by purpose or destination.
destination.
therein, the machines revert to the condition
of a chattel. The moment they are separated
from the purpose of the industry (not
Essential requisites:
requisites: necessarily from the immovable), they
recover their (not necessarily from the
immovable), they recover their condition as
1. The placing must be made by the movables (see: Ago vs Court of Appeals, 6
owner of the tenement, his agent, or duly SCRA 530).
authorized legal representative;
2. The industry or works must be

On the other hand, if still needed for the
carried on in the building or on the land;
industry, but separated from the tenement
3. The machines, etc. must tend temporarily, the property continues to be
directly to meet the needs of said industry, immovable, inasmuch as par. 5 refers not to
and not merely incidental. real property by incorporation, but to real
property by destination or purpose.
In Mindanao Bus Co. vs City Assessor, 116

Phil 501, it was ruled that a transportation business PARAGRAPH 6:
6:
is not carried on in a building or in the compound.
Animal houses, pigeon-houses,
Cash registers, typewriters, etc. usually found and
beehives, fishponds or breeding places or
used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc., are
similar nature, in case their owner has placed
merely incidentals, and should not be considered
them or preserves them with the intention to
immobilized by destination for these business can
have them permanently attached to the land,
continue or carry on their functions without these
and forming a permanent part of it; the
equipments. The same applies to the repair or
animals in these places are included.
service shop of the transportation business because
the vehicles may be repaired or serviced in another
shop belonging to another.
The houses referred to here may
already be deemed included in par. 1 when
speaking of “constructions of all kinds
In Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng,
Unjieng, 61 Phil
adhered to the soil.”
663, the Supreme Court held: “Machinery
intended by the owner of any building or land Even if the animals are temporarily
for the use in connection with any industry or outside, they may still be considered as real
trade being carried on therein and which are property as long as the intent to return is
expressly adapted to meet the requirements present, as in case of a homing pigeon.
of such trade, are considered as real
property.”
“If the installation of the machinery and But from the viewpoint of criminal law,
Page | 5
they are considered as personal property and The “waters” referred to are those still
may properly be the objects of theft or attached to or running thru the soil or
robbery. ground. But the “water” itself as distinguished
from “waters” is clearly personal property.
On the other hand, canals, rivers, lakes, and
such part of the sea as may be the object of
When the animals inside the permanent
appropriation, are classified as real property.
animal houses are alienated onerously or
gratuitously, the transaction is an alienation of
personal property, unless the building or the
tenement itself is also alienated . This is because in PARAGRAPH 9:
9:
said alienation, the animal structures must of
necessity be detached from the immovable. Hence Docks and structures which, though
an ordinary inter-vivos donation of a pigeon-house floating, are intended by their nature and
need not be in a public instrument. object to remain at a fixed place on a river, or
coast.
PARAGRAPH 7:
7:
A floating house tied to a shore or
Fertilizers actually used on a piece of bank post and used as a residence is
land. considered real property, considering that the
“waters” on which it floats, are considered
immovables. In a way, we may say that the
classification of the accessory (the floating
Fertilizers still in the barn and even
house) follows the classification of the
those already on the ground but wrapped
principal (the waters). However, if the
inside some newspapers or any other covering
floating house makes it a point to travel from
are still to be considered personal property,
place to place, it assumes the category of a
for they have not yet been “actually” used or
vessel.
spread over the land.
By express provision of Art. 585 of the

The fertilizers should be on the land
Code of Commerce, vessels are movable
where they are to be utilized, because it is
property; but they partake, to a certain
only that the intention of the owner to use
extent, of the nature and conditions of the
them on the tenement is beyond doubt.
property, on account of their value and
Hence, fertilizers kept in the farmhouse are
importance in the world of commerce. (see:
not immovable.
Rubiso vs Rivera, 37 Phil. 72).
PARAGRAPH 8:
8:
Vessels are considered personal
Mines, quarries, and slag dumps while property. As a matter of fact, they are indeed
the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and very movable. (see: PRC vs Jarque, 61 Phil
waters, either running or stagnant. 229).
Mines, including the minerals still attached Because they are personal property,
thereto, are real properties, but when the they may be the subject of the chattel
minerals have been extracted, the latter mortgage. (see McMicking vs Espanol-
become chattels. Filipino, 13 Phil 429; Arroyo vs Yu de Sane,
54 Phil7).
Slag dump is the dirt and soil taken from a

mine and piled upon the surface of the PARAGRAPH 10:
10:
ground. Inside the “dump” can be found the
Contracts for public works, and
minerals.
servitudes and other real rights over
immovable property.
Page | 6
The properties referred to in this appropriation which are not included in

paragraph are not material things but rights, the preceding article.
which are necessarily intangible. The piece of
paper on which the contract for the public
works has been written is necessarily
Examples:
Examples: cell phones;
personal property, but the contract itself, or
the right of the contract is real property.
property. money; ring; cars.
A servitude or easement is an 2. Real property which by any special

encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for provision of law is considered as
the benefit of another immovable belonging personalty.
to a different owner, or for the benefit of a
person, group of persons, or a community.
[ex. easement of right of way]
Examples:
Examples: Growing crops for the purpose of the
Chattel Mortgage Law (see: Sibal vs Valdez, 50 Phil.
512); machinery placed on a tenement by a tenant,
Other real rights over real property who did not act as the agent of the tenement owner
include real estate mortgage, antichresis, (see: Davao Sawmill vs. Castillo, 61 Phil. 709).
possessory retention, usufruct, leases of real
property, if registered; or even if not
registered, if their duration is for more than a
3. Forces of nature which are brought
year.
under control by science.
Usufruct of personal property or a

lease of personal property, should be Examples: Electricity, gas, light, nitrogen
considered personal property. (see: US vs Carlos, 21 Phil. 543);
4. In general, all things which can be

In the case of Presbitero vs. Fernandez
transported from place to place without
(March 30, 1958), the Supreme Court held
impairment of the real property to which
that sugar quotas are real property, for they
they are fixed.
are by law considered “real rights over
immovable property” just like servitudes and
easements.
Examples: Machinery not attached to land or
needed for the carrying on of an industry
In Cabutihan vs LCDC, 383 SCRA 353, conducted therein.
it was held that actions affecting title to or
possession of real property or an interest
therein shall be commenced and tried in the TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER
proper court that has territorial jurisdiction PROPERTY IS MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE
over the area where the real property is
situated.
situated.
a) If the property is capable of
being carried from place to place. (Test
by description)
MOVABLE PROPERTY
b) If such change in location can

be made without injuring the real
Art. 416. The following things are
property to which it may in the
deemed to be personal property :
meantime be attached. (Test by
description)
1. Those movables susceptible of
Page | 7
c) And if finally, the object is not

one of those enumerated or included in
Art. 415. (Test by exclusion)
 A half interest in drugstore business
is personal property capable of being the
Then the inevitable conclusion is that the subject of a chattel mortgage (see:
property is personal property. Strochecher vs. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933).
However, a half-interest in a drugstore,
considered as a building (not a business) is a
real right in real property and is therefore by
Note:
Note: Test by exclusion is superior to test by itself a real property.
description.
In Hongkong and Shanghai Bank vs

Art. 417. The following are also Aldecoa, 30 Phil 255, it was held that real
considered as personal property:
property: estate mortgages are realty and not
personalty.
1.) Obligations and actions which have for

their object movables or demandable sums.
REMINDERS : PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON

TO WHOM IT BELONGS
The term obligations really refers to
”credits” and also includes bonds, which are
technically obligations of the entity issuing
them; Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion
or of private ownership.
Actions – if somebody steals my car,
my right to bring action to recover the
automobile is personal property by itself; A
The State may own properties both in
promissory note is a personal property; the
its public capacity (public dominion) and
right to collect it is also a personal property.
private capacity (patrimonial).
2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial

Public dominion – ownership by the
and industrial entities, although they may
state in its public capacity or in the exercise of
have real estate.
its governmental functions.
functions.
Although the provisions of par. 2 seem

Patrimonial – ownership by the state
to refer only to corporations by the words
in its private capacity or in the course of its
“shares of stocks”, and only to those engaged
proprietary functions.
functions. This is the property
in agriculture, commerce, and industry,
over which the State has the same rights, and
nevertheless, all juridical persons must be
for which it may dispose, to the same extent
deemed included.
included.
as private individuals in relation to their
property, subject only to the administrative
laws and regulations on the procedure of
 A share of stock in a gold mining

exercising such rights. They exist for the State
to attain its economic ends, as a means for its
corporation is also personal property; but the subsistence, and the preservation of its
gold mine itself, and any land of the natural organism.
corporation, are regarded as real property by
the law. The certificate evidencing ownership
of the share, and the share itself, are What are properties of public
regarded as personal property. Being dominion? [see Art 420, NCC]
personal, they may be the object of a chattel
mortgage (see: Chua Guan vs. Samahang
Magsasaka, Inc. 62 Phil. 472)
Page | 8
1.) Those intended for public use, such

as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
bridges constructed by the state, banks, In Republic vs. Gonzales, 199 SCRA
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar 788,
788, it was held that : the conception urged
character;
character; by appellants to restrict property reserved for
public use to include only property susceptible
of being used by a generally unlimited number
of people is flawed and obsolete, since the
2.) Those which belong to the state, number of the users is not the yardstick in
without being for public use, and are intended determining whether property is properly
for some public service or for the reserved for public use or benefit.
development of the national wealth.
wealth.
To constitute public use, the public in
 In Usero vs CA, 353 SCRA 449, the SC

general should have equal or common rights
to use the land or facility involved on the
held that the phrase “others of similar same terms, however limited in the number of
character” includes a creek which is a people who can actually avail themselves of it
recess or an arm of a river. It is property at a given time. There is nothing in the law
belonging to the public domain which is which excludes non-car owners from using a
not susceptible to private ownership. widened street or a parking area should they
Being public water, a creek cannot be in fact happen to be driving cars. The
registered under the Torrens System in opportunity to avail of the use thereof
the name of any individual. remains open for the public in general.
CHARACTERISTICS: In Villarico vs Sarmiento, 110 SCRA 442, the

SC ruled that : “Public use is use that is not confined
1. They may be real or personal; to privileged individuals but is open to the indefinite
public. Records show that the lot on which the
2. They cannot be levied or
stairways were built is for the use of the people as
attached; [Tan Toco vs Mun. Council of
passageway to the highway. Consequently, it is a
Iloilo, 49 Phil 52];
property of public dominion.”
3. They cannot be registered
under the Land Registration Law;
Property for PUBLIC SERVICE - This
4. They cannot be acquired by
kind of property includes all property devoted
prescription [Harty vs Mun. of Victoria,
for public service. In Baguio Citizens Action vs
13 Phil. 152];
City Council, 121 SCRA 368, it was held that
5. They are outside the commerce all public buildings constructed by the State
of man [Mun. Of Cavite vs Rojas, 30 for its offices and functionaries belong to this
Phil 20]; class.
6. They cannot be burdened by

any voluntary easement.
QUESTION: Are rivers whether navigable or
not, properties of public dominion?
Property for PUBLIC USE,

USE, defined :
It can be used by everybody, even by Answer :

strangers or aliens in accordance with its
It would seem that Art. 420 NCC,
nature; but nobody can exercise over it the
makes no distinction.
rights of a private owner. Thus, no private
person can have a property right in the use of
a street for his private business, nor can he
acquire over such a right to possession as However:
would require the exercise of possessory
In Palanca vs. Commonwealth,
Commonwealth, 40 OG
actions.
148, the Supreme Court said:
Page | 9
“The river Viray and the estero Who shall declare?

declare?
Sapang Sedoria, being navigable,
navigable, useful for
commerce, for navigation, and fishing, they
have the character of public domain.”
In the case of Faustino vs Dir. Of
Lands, L-12958, May 30, 1960, the Supreme
Court, (citing Natividad vs. Dir. Of Lands, CA
In Taleon vs. Secretary of Public 37 OG 2905 said that only the executive and
Works,
Works, L-24281, May 16, 1967, it was held possibly the legislative departments have the
that if a river is capable in its natural state of authority and power to make the declaration
being used for commerce, it is navigable in that any land so gained by the sea is not
fact, and therefore, becomes a public river. necessary for purposes of public utility, or for
the establishment of special industries. If no
such declaration has been made by the said
departments, the lot in question forms part of
In Martinez vs Court of
the public domain.
Appeals,
Appeals, 56 SRCA 647, it was held that navigable
rivers are outside the commerce of man and
therefore cannot be registered under the Land
Registration Law. If converted into fishponds, the Consequently, until there is made a
latter can be demolished notwithstanding the title, formal declaration on the part of the
for said title cannot convert the streams into private government thru the executive department or
ones. the legislature, the parcel in question
continues to be part of the public domain and
cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription.
In Mercado vs Municipal President of
Macabebe, 59 Phil 592, it was ruled that creeks
Macabebe,
which are mere extensions of rivers are considered
property of public domain.
In Laurel vs Garcia, 187 SCRA 799, the
Supreme Court said : It is not for the
President to convey valuable real property of
CONVERSION:
the government on his or her own sole will.
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, Any such conveyance must be authorized and
when no longer intended for public use or approved by law enacted by Congress. It
for public service, shall form part of the requires executive and legislative
patrimonial property of the state. concurrence.
Note:
Note: See: Coaco vs. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481.
When change takes effect : See also: International Hardwood vs. Univ. of
the Philippines, August 13, 1991, 200 SCRA
554.
Property of public dominion ceases to

be such and becomes private property of the
State only upon declaration by the OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
government, thru the legislative or executive
departments, to the effect that it is no longer
needed for public use or public service.
service. If the Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised
property has been intended for such use or over things or rights. A person has the right
service, and the government has not devoted to control a thing particularly in his
it to other uses, or adopted any measure possession, enjoyment, disposition, and
which amounted to a withdrawal thereof from recovery, subject to no restriction except
public use or service, the same remains those imposed by the law.
property for public use or service
notwithstanding the fact that it is not actually
devoted for public use or service. (See:
Right to Enjoy : In Marcos vs
Capitulo, et. Al. vs Aquino 53 OG1477)
Page | 10
Endencia,
Endencia, 38 O.G. 855, it was ruled that the period not exceeding 20 years.
right to enjoy consists not only in the right to
collect the rents or fruits, in short, the
benefits which accrue from the thing, but also
SELF-HELP,
SELF-HELP, doctrine of :
in the right to use and utilize the same
according to its natural destination and in the
right, besides, to make the thing serve one’s
necessities,
necessities, one’s pleasures,
pleasures, and even, within Art. 429. The owner or lawful
the letter and spirit of the law, personal possessor of a thing has the right to exclude
whims.
whims. any person from enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
force as may be reasonably necessary to repel
or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
QUESTION :
physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.
If a land has been foreclosed by the

mortgagee, does the mortgagor still have the
This article was taken from Art. 227 of
right to enjoy his foreclosed property?
the German Civil Code which provides:
YES, but only during the period of

An act impelled by legitimate necessity shall
redemption. In GSIS vs CA, 377 SCRA 54, it
not be unlawful. Legitimate necessity consists
was held that the mortgagor has the right to
in the defense indispensable to repel,
redeem his property, possession, use and
personally or thru another, an actual or unjust
enjoyment of the same during the period of
situation.
redemption.
Principle of self-help:
self-help:
LIMITATIONS ON OWNERSHIP
1. Imposed by law :
It is lawful to repel force by means of
- Easement of right of way; party wall;
force.
force. It implies that the state of things to be
drainage.
defended enjoys juridical protection.
2. Imposed by state :
It is sort of self-defense, where the use
- Police power; of such necessary force to protect proprietary
or possessory rights constitutes a justifying
- Power of taxation; - circumstance under the Penal Code.
- Power of eminent domain.
The actual invasion of property may be:
3. Imposed by owner : a. Mere disturbance of possession

– force may be used against it at any
-in cases of lease, the owner cannot in time as long as it continues, even
the meantime physically occupy beyond the prescriptive period for an
the property; (also pledges). action of forcible entry. Thus if a ditch
opened by Pedro in the land of Juan,
the latter may close it or cover it by
4. Imposed by grantor : force at any time.
- The donor may prohibit the donee

from partitioning the property for a
Page | 11
b. Real dispossession – force, to situation, as against an external event which

regain possession can only be used the passive subject is entitled to repel as
immediately after the dispossession. much as an unlawful aggression by another.
Thus, if Juan without the permission of
Pedro, picks up a book belonging to
the latter and runs off with it, Pedro
Examples of danger contemplated by
can pursue Juan and recover the book
this article are the attack of animals, the
by force.
spread of fire, the threat of flood, etc. The
attacking animal, belonging to another may
be killed by the victim; a house in the path of
In German Management & Services,Services, a fire may be demolished; and a dike may be
Inc. vs CA, 177 SCRA 495, it was held that destroyed at one point to prevent a flood over
the doctrine of self-help can only be exercised other places. The law permits the injury or
at the time of actual or threatened destruction of things belonging to other
dispossession.
dispossession. When possession had already provided this is necessary to avert a greater
been lost, the owner must resort to judicial danger.
process for the recovery of property.
Requisites:
In People vs Segovia, 103 Phil 1162,
the SC ruled that the owner of the plants who
shot an animal to death, out of vengeance is
1) Existence of an evil sought to
not justified under the rule. The proper move
be avoided;
for him to do is to drive away the animal and
then seek damages from the owner of the 2) The injury feared is greater
animal. For shooting and killing the animal, he than that done to avoid it;
can be convicted of malicious mischief.
3) That there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing
it;
Nature of the aggression: The aggression must
be illicit or unlawful.
unlawful. The right to self-help is not 4) The means employed is
available against the exercise of right by another, necessary and indispensable to avert
such as when the latter executes an extra-judicial danger.
abatement of nuisance. Neither can it be used
against the lawful exercise of the functions of a
public official, such as a sheriff attaching property.
Effect of mistake – the right to act in a
state of necessity depends upon the objective
existence of the danger with the requisites
provided by law. If through error, one
believed himself to be in a state of necessity,
ACTS IN A STATE OF NECESSITY,
NECESSITY, doctrine of :
or used means in excess of the requirements ,
his act would be illicit and the owner of the
property used against him the defensive force
Art. 432. the owner of a thing has no authorized in Art. 429.
right to prohibit the interference of another
with the same, if the interference is necessary
to avert an imminent danger and the
Effect of negligence – The law does not
threatened damage, compared to the damage
require that the person acting in a state of
arising to the owner from the interference, is
necessity be free from negligence in the
much greater. The owner may demand from
creation of such situation. Thus, if a person
the person benefited indemnity for the
picks up an unknown object in a drug store
damage to him.
and eats it, thinking it to be candy, and it
turns out to be poison, he can lawfully drink
any antidote he may find in the store, even
This article, following the same without the consent of the owner.
principle of self-help contained in the second
part of Article 429, allows the use of
defensive force to preserve an existing
Page | 12
Basis of liability – The obligation to indemnity the owner when the purpose of the
does not depend upon imputability. The basis expropriation is terminated or abandoned, the
of the liability is the benefit derived. original owner of the property would
reacquire the property.
Conflict of rights – The right of self-help under

Article 429 is not available against an act in a FORMULA: Market value + consequential
state of necessity. damages – consequential benefits.
[MRR vs Velasquez, 32 Phil 286]
Illustration :
JUST COMPENSATION,
COMPENSATION, concept of :
PhP10,000,000.00 market value of land

Just compensation – The fair and full
equivalent for the loss sustained (Mla. + 2,000,000.00 consequential damages as
Railroad vs. Velasquez, 32 Phil 286). when a
building is demolished
The market value of the condemned PhP12,000,000.00

property plus consequential damages less
consequential benefits (Manila Railroad vs. - 1,000,000.00 consequential benefits as
Fabie, 17 Phil. 208); See also EPZA vs. Dulay, when
149 SCRA 305.
market value of his separate
adjacent property increased

QUESTION: May real property be subjected to
------------------
an easement of right of way through
expropriation? PhP11,000,000.00 amount of just
compensation
In Republic vs PLDT, 26 SCRA 620, the

SC ruled that normally, expropriation deals \
with a transfer of title or ownership; there is
nothing wrong, therefore, in imposing a RIGHT OF ACCESSION
burden less than the transfer of ownership . It
is unquestionable that real property may
through expropriation be subjected to an
easement of right of way.
Art 440. The ownership of property
gives the right by accession to everything
QUESTION: In the event that the purpose of which is produced thereby, or which is
the expropriation is abandoned or withdrawn, incorporated or attached thereto, either
is the previous owner entitled to reacquire the naturally or artificially.
property?
Accession, meaning of :
In Fery vs Municipality of Cabanatuan,
42 Phil 28, the SC ruled that if the decree
granted full ownership to the petitioner, the
latter remains the owner regardless of the  The right of a property owner to
disappearance or cessation of the public need everything which is produced thereby or
for the property. which is incorporated or attached thereto.
thereto.
If the grant of ownership or title is
subject to the condition that it will revert to
Page | 13
“To the owner of the principal belongs industrial – BUILDING, PLANTING, SOWING.
SOWING.
the accessory.”
REMINDER :
Exception : Art. 120 of the Family
Code.
Instances when the owner of land

does not own the fruits:
A building constructed on the land
owned by one of the spouses at the expense
of the conjugal partnership will belong to the
 Possessor in good faith of the land.

partnership or to the spouse who owns the
land depending on which of the two
(He owns the fruits already received.) (see : properties has a higher value.
Art 544, par 1)
If the land is more valuable than the

building, the building shall be owned by the
 Usufruct. The usufructuary owns the owner of the land.
fruits. (see Art 566)
If the building is more valuable than

the land, the entire property shall belong to
 Lease. The lessee gets the fruits of the

the conjugal partnership.
land. (Of course, the owner gets the civil

fruits in the form of rentals.) see Art. 1654
In both cases, there is right of
reimbursement at the time of liquidation of
the conjugal partnership.
 In antichresis, the antichretic creditor

gets the fruits, although said fruits should be
applied first to the interest, if any is owing;
and then to the principal amount of the loan. RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNER
(see : Art. 2132)
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT

TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY Art. 447. The owner of the land who
makes thereon personally or thru another,
plantings, constructions or works with the
materials of another shall pay their value; and
GEN. RULE : if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be
obliged to the reparation of damages. The
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or
owner of the materials shall have the right to
sown on the land of another and the
remove them only in case he can do so
improvements or repairs made thereon,
without injury to the work constructed, or
belong to the owner of the land.
without the plantings, constructions or works
To the owner of the principal (land for being destroyed. However, if the landowner
example) must belong also the accessions – in acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials
accordance with the principle that the may remove them in any event, with a right to
“accessory follows the principal.”
principal.” be indemnified for damages.
NOTE : This article deals with Note : There is no provision of law which
accession continua more specifically accession applies to a situation where the landowner is
in good faith while the owner of the material
Page | 14
is in bad faith.
faith. when the materials had not been
transformed, the landowner may return them
at his expense to the owner of the materials.
However, it would seem that the

landowner would not only be exempted from
reimbursement, but would also be entitled to QUESTION: What if the new thing is
consequential damages (as when for instance, dismantled, is the right of the owner of the
the materials are of inferior quality). materials revived?
Moreover, the owner of the materials would
lose all rights to them , such as the right of
removal, regardless of whether substantial
Answer: It would seem that the law attributes
injury would be caused.
ownership to the landowner by giving them
the option to pay for their value, hence, the
right of the owner of the materials is not
REMINDERS : revived.
However,
However, the better rule should be
that as long as there is no injury to the work
 Under Art. 447. The landowner himself (as

constructed or to the planting, the same may
be recovered by the owner thereof.
distinguished from Art. 448) makes the PLANTINGS,
CONSTRUCTIONS OR WORKS on his land, BUT
with the materials of another person.
person. REMINDER :
 In such a situation, a NEW THING is  In case of alienation by the landowner,

produced (i.e. something that is built or the owner of the materials may go against the
constructed on a land by the landowner with new owner, because he is the one benefited
the materials of another), but does not result by the accession. (Pacific Farms vs Esguerra
in co-ownership.
co-ownership. The owner therefore of the 30 SCRA 684)
materials does not become part owner of the
new thing. He is only entitled to recover their
value.
 Bad Faith; Good Faith, meaning of –

(Cf. Arts. 453 and 526). The builder, planter
 In short, the law gives the
or sower is in bad faith if he makes use of the
land or materials which he knows belong to
LANDOWNER, who acted in good faith, the another.
right to APPROPRIATE the new thing provided
that he INDEMNIFIES the owner of the
materials.
Art. 448. The owner of the land on
which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to
QUESTION: What if the landowner offers to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
dismantle the new thing and return the planting, after payment of the indemnity
materials thereof to its owner? provided for in Article 546 and 548 or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
price of the land, and one who sowed, the
Answer: Strictly speaking, the law does not proper rent.
grant this option. What the law provides is
the right (of the landowner) to pay for the
value of the materials. However, the builder or planter cannot
be obliged to buy the land if its value is
However, when the materials can be
considerably more than that of the building
removed without causing injury thereof (i.e.
or trees.
trees. In such case, he shall pay
statues, ornaments or other of like nature), or
reasonable rent if the owner of the land does
Page | 15
not chose to appropriate the building or trees not paid implies the tenancy or possession in fact of
after indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the land which it is built, planted or sown. The
the terms of the lease and in case of petitioner not having been so paid, he was entitled
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms to retain ownership of the building, and, necessarily,
thereof.
thereof. the income therefrom. [Cf : Mendoza vs de Guzman,
54 SCRA 164]
Note:
Note: This article applies only if the builder,
planter or sower is in good faith. (See also What is the basis of reimbursement,
reimbursement,
Arts. 454 and 447.) cost of the building or the market value of the
building?
Applicability of Art. 448. In PECSON

VS COURT OF APPEALS, 244 SCRA 407, it was Again, in Pecson [supra], it was held
held that Article 448 applies only to a land that the objective of Art. 546 of the Civil Code
whose ownership is claimed by two or more is to administer justice between the parties
parties, one of whom has built some works, involved in such a way as neither one nor the
one sown or planted something. It does not other may enrich himself of that which does
apply to a case where the owner of the land is not belong to him. It is therefore the current
the builder, sower or planter who then later market value of the improvement which
loses ownership of the land by sale or should be made the basis of reimbursement.
donation. Nevertheless, the provision therein
with respect to indemnity may be applied by
analogy considering that the primary intent of A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich
Art. 448 is to avoid a state of forced co- the private respondents who would otherwise
ownership. be allowed to acquire a highly valued income-
yielding four-unit apartment building for a
measly amount.
In PNB vs de Jesus, 557 SCRA 411, the
SC held that Art 448 refers to a piece of land
whose ownership is claimed by two or more
QUESTION: May a lessee or a tenant who
parties, one of whom has built some works (or
introduced improvements on a rented land
sown or planted something) and, not to a case
recover for their value under Art. 448?
where the owner of the land is the builder or
sower or planter who then later loses
ownership of the land by sale or otherwise for
“where the true owner himself is the builder In Balucanag vs Francisco, 122 SCRA
of works on his own land, the issue of good 498, in rel. to Rivera vs Trinidad, 48 Phil 396,
faint or bad faith is entirely irrelevant.” the SC ruled : “Art 448 does not apply to a
lessee because as such lessee he knows that
he is not the owner of the leased premises.
Neither can he deny the ownership or title of
Who is entitled to possession of the
his lessor. A lessee who introduces
building if the landowner opts to appropriate
improvements in the leased premises, does so
the building?
at his own risk in the sense that he cannot
recover their value from the lessor, much less
retain the premises until such
In Pecson [supra], the SC further held : reimbursement.”
Since the landowner opted to appropriate the
apartment building, the owner of the building
is thus entitled to the possession and
Also, in CHUA vs COURT OF APPEALS,
enjoyment of the apartment building, until he
301 SCRA 358, it was held that : “…the fact
is paid the proper indemnity,
indemnity, as well as of the that petitioners made repairs on the premises
portion of the lot where the building was
is not a reason to retain the possession of the
constructed.
premises. There is no provision of law which
grants the lessee a right of retention over the
leased premises on that ground.”
This is so, because the right to retain the
improvements while the corresponding indemnity is
Page | 16
“Art. 448 of the Civil Code, in relation land to the builder, and compel the latter to
to Art. 546, which provides for full remove the building. He is entitled to seek the
reimbursement of useful improvements and removal of the building only if after having
retention of the premises until reimbursement chosen to sell the land, the builder failed to
is made, applies only to a possessor in good pay for the same.
faith, i.e. one who builds on a land in the
belief that he is the owner thereof. This right
is not applicable to a mere lessee, otherwise,
Is the landowner entitled to rentals
it would always be in his power to “improve”
from the builder during the period of
his landlord out of the latter’s property.”
retention?
What if both the landowner and the

In Grana vs CA, 109 Phil 260, the SC
builder are in good faith, who shall prevail?
prevail?
ruled that during the time that the builder is
retaining possession of the land, he cannot be
required to pay rentals. Otherwise, the right
In a sense, it is the landowner, since of retention will be rendered nugatory.
the law grants upon him the right either to
appropriate or compulsory sale. In both cases
however, the builder is also protected.
What is the nature of the right of
retention?
retention?
OTHER REMEDIES : The right of retention is security for

the payment of improvements. [Miranda vs
Fadullon, 97 Phil 801]. If the building is
gutted by fire, the basis for right of retention
In Filipinas Colleges vs Timbang, 106 is extinguished. [Manotok vs Tecson, 164
Phil 247, the SC held that the land and SCRA 587].
improvements may be sold at public auction,
applying the proceeds thereof to the payment
of the value of the land and the excess, if any,
to be delivered to the owner of the
improvements in payment thereof. RULES TO REMEMBER :
In Miranda vs Fadullon, 97 Phil 801, it IF LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH

was held that the parties may decide to leave
things as they are and assume the relation of
lessor or lessee; and should they disagree as
to the amount of the rental, they can go to He has two options : (It is the
court for the fixing of that amount. landowner who has the option not the
builder, planter or sower.)
NOTE : Forced lease is also created

when the landowner opts for compulsory sale
[value of land is not immoderate] and the  To appropriate for himself
builder failed to pay. anything that has been built, planted or
sown upon the proper payment of
indemnity; (RIGHT OF APPROPRIATION)
Can the landowner refuse to exercise cf: Ignao vs IAC 1-18-91
both options and insists on removal?
Note: Ownership over the thing built,

In Ignacio vs Hilario, 76 Phil 605, it sown or planted does not pass to the
was held that the landowner cannot both landowner until after payment therefore
refuse to pay for the building and to sell the has been given. In the meantime, the
Page | 17
builder, planter or sower (who is in good

faith) has the right of retention, see :
Martinez vs Baganus, 28 Phil 500);
 The builder may be compelled
to pay the price of the land (whether or
not the value of the land is considerably
higher than the value of the house) and
the sower proper rent;
 To compel the builder to buy
the land unless the value of the land be
considerably more than the value of what
has been built, planted or sown; (RIGHT
TO COMPULSORY SELLING). In this
 He is liable to pay damages.
situation, there is no right of retention

because the planter, builder or sower is
the one required to pay. (see: Bernardo vs QUESTION: If Davao City is invaded and
Bataclan, 66 Phil 598) occupied by an enemy country and an
airstrip is constructed on a private land,
who shall own the airstrip after the war,
assuming the enemy is defeated?
 Generally, the landowner has

no RIGHT OF REMOVAL, except after
having selected a compulsory sale, the In Republic vs Lara, 96 Phil 170, it was
builder, planter or sower fails to pay for held that the airfield belongs to the
the land. (see : Ignacio vs Hilario, 76 Republic of the Philippines and not to
Phil 605) the owner of the land. The Japanese
Army cannot be considered a possessor
in bad faith so as to make the airfield the
property of the landowner by industrial
Note: Once a choice is made by the accession. International law allows the
landowner, it is generally irrevocable. temporary use by the enemy occupant of
Thus, if the landowner has elected to get private lands and buildings for all kinds
the building, but is finally unable to pay of purposes demanded by the necessities
for the indemnity or value of the of war.
building, she cannot afterwards elect to
sell the land. (see: Tayag vs Yuseco, 97
Phil 712)
ALLUVIUM
IF THE BUILDER, PLANTER IS IN BAD FAITH
(Landowner in good faith) : (See :Arts : 449;
450 and 451) Art. 457. To the owners of lands
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the
 He loses what is built, planted waters. (See : Republic vs CA, 132 SCRA
514)
or sown without right to indemnity
(except necessary expenses for the
preservation of the land), see : Art 452;
NOTE : This article applies also to creeks,
streams, lakes (although the soil
deposited may not be called alluvium.)
 He may be required to demolish

or remove what is built or planted or
Forms of accession natural:
sown;
- Alluvium;
- Avulsion;
Page | 18
- Change of course of rivers; current of waters.” Undoubtedly,

plaintiff is the lawful owner of the
- Formation of islands. accretion, she being the registered
owner of Lot Not. 1980 which adjoins
the alluvial property.
Alluvium is the soil deposited or added
to (accretion) the lands adjoining the
banks of rivers and gradually received as Alluvion gives to the owners of land
an effect of the current of the waters. adjoining the banks of rivers or streams
By law, the accretion is owned by the any accretion which is gradually
owner of the estate fronting the river received from the effects of the current
bank (riparian owner). of water. The rationale for the rule is to
provide some kind of compensation to
owners of land continually exposed to
Accretion is the process whereby soil is the destructive force of water and
deposited; alluvium is the soil deposited subjected to various easements.
easements.
on river banks.
QUESTION : Does the Director of Land

Essential requisites of alluvium: have jurisdiction to grant title over
alluvial claims by third party who is not
the riparian owner?
1. The deposit should be gradual and

imperceptible as a process (natural);
Current must be that of a river; does not In FERRER VS. BAUTISTA [supra], the
apply to accretion by man-made means Director of Lands has no authority to
(see: Republic vs CA, 132 SCRA 154); grant a free patent over the land that
has passed to private ownership and
which has thereby ceased to be public
land. Any title thus issued or conveyed
2. Current must be that of a rive (if lake, the by him would be null and void. Private
deposit may not be called alluvium but respondents, therefore, acquired
the principle is the same, see : Art. 84 no right or title over the disputed land
Spanish Law on Waters); by virtue of the free patent since at the
time it was issued in 1966, it was
already private property and not part of
3. The river must continue to exist (otherwise, the disposable land of the public domain.
if the river disappears, Art. 58 PD 1067,
in re : Art. 461 NCC, shall apply);
QUESTION : Is there a need for the riparian
owner of making a formal claim of
4. The increase must be comparatively little. possession?
In Agne vs Director, 181 SCRA 793, it

was held that the riparian owner may
QUESTION : What is the nature of an not necessarily make an express act of
alluvion and how is it acquired? possession, it being that the accretion is
automatic, the moment the soil deposit
appears.
In FERRER VS. BAUTISTA, 231 SCRA
257, it was held that : Article 457 of the
Civil Code, under which petitioner claims However, in Grande vs CA, 6-30-62, it
ownership over the disputed parcel of was held that an alluvial deposit does
land, provides: “Art.457. To the owners not automatically become registered
of land adjoining the banks of rivers land simply because the lot which
belong the accretion which they receives it is covered by a Torrens Title.
gradually receive from the effects of the Although the owner of the land on which
Page | 19
the alluvial deposit is made becomes

automatically the owner of the alluvial
deposit, the law not requiring any act of
- If the detached portion is not
attached to another’s land but simply is
possession on his part from the moment
in the middle of the river, ownership still
the deposit becomes manifest.
remains with the person whose land it
had been detached.
Still ownership of a piece of land is one

thing and registration under the Torrens
Art. 462. Whenever a river, changing its
System is another. In order that the
course by natural causes,
causes, opens a new
alluvial deposit may be entitled to the
bed through a private estate, this bed
protection of imprescriptibility, the same
shall become of public dominion.
must be placed under the operation of
the Land Registration Law. An
unregistered alluvial property is
therefore subject to acquisition through QUESTION : If the cause of the damage
prescription by third person. is due to artificial means, is the riparian
owner entitled to compensation?
In BAES vs CA. If the riparian owner is

AVULSION entitled to compensation for the damage
to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a compensate him when the change in the
river, creek or torrent segregates from course of the river is effected through
an estate on its bank a known portion of artificial means. The loss to the
land and transfers it to another state, petitioners of the land covered by the
the owner of the land to which the canal was the result of a deliberate act
segregated portion belonged retains the on the part of the government when it
ownership of it, provided that he sought to improve the flow of the Tripa
removes the same within two years. de Gallina creek. It was therefore
obligated to compensate the Baeses for
the loss.
Avulsion - the process whereby the

current of a RIVER, CREEK or TORRENT
segregates from an estate on its bank a
KNOWN PORTION of land and transfers
QUIETING OF TITLE
it to another estate.
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on

Avulsion implies a violent tearing or
title to real property or any interest therein,
breaking away. It may also be referred
by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
to as “delayed accession” in the sense
encumbrance, or proceeding which is
that if the owner abandons the soil
apparently valid or effective but is in truth
involved, or fails to remove (not merely
and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or
claim) the same within two years, the
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
land to which it had been attached
title, an action may be brought to remove
acquires ownership thereof.
such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may
REMINDERS : also brought to prevent a cloud from being
cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.
- Torrent means a violent , rushing or

turbulent stream.
Note:
Note: Please observe that when the
- The law does not make a distinction whether instrument is not valid on its face, the
the portion segregated is big or small. remedy does not apply.
Page | 20
adverse party and founded upon the

instrument or claim, be required to offer
What is an action for quieting of title? evidence to defeat a recovery? If proof
would be essential, the cloud exists; if
proof is not needed, no cloud is cast.
In ROBLES VS. CA, 328 SCRA 97, the SC
said : An action for quieting of title is a
common law remedy for the removal of any
For example:
example:
cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title
to the real property. It is essential for the
plaintiff or complainant to have a legal or
an equitable title to or interest in the real Alma’s land was sold by Roger (a forger)
property which is the subject matter of the to B, a buyer in good faith. Alma’s name
action. Also, the deed, claim, encumbrance had been forged by Roger in the deed of
or proceeding that is being alleged as a sale. The sale on its face, is apparently
cloud on plaintiff’s title must be shown to valid, with Alma’s name indicated as the
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
seller. In truth, however, the sale is
prima facie appearance of validity of legal
defective because of the forgery. Alma’s
efficacy.
remedy is an action to quiet title.
What must be proven in an action to

Question: Does an action to quiet title
quiet title?
prescribe?
In SECUYA vs. VDA. DE SELMA, 329

It depends, if the plaintiff is in
SCRA 244, it was held that in an action
possession of the property, the action
to quiet title, the plaintiffs or
does not prescribe. But if the plaintiff is
complainants must demonstrate a legal
not in possession of the property, the
or an equitable title to, or an interest in,
action may prescribe. (see: Fernandez vs
the subject real property. Likewise, they
CA, 189 SCRA 780, Mamadsual vs Moson,
must show that the deed, claim,
140 SCRA 83)
encumbrance or proceeding that
purportedly casts a cloud on their title is
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or In PINGOL VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 226
legal efficacy. SCRA 118, the SC ruled that although
the plaintiff’s complaint was
denominated as one for specific
performance, it is in effect an action to
Requisites:
quiet title. Prescription thus cannot be
invoked against the private respondents
 Existence of an instrument for it is aphoristic that an action to
quiet title to property in one’s
(deed or contract) or record or claim or
possession is imprescriptible. The
encumbrance or proceeding;
rationale for this rule has been aptly
state thus : “The owner of real property
 The instrument or proceeding is
who is in possession thereof may wait
until his possession is invaded or his title
apparently valid or effective, and is attacked before taking steps to
prejudicial to the title; vindicate his right. A person claiming
title to real property, but not in
 In truth and in fact, invalid,

possession thereof, must
affirmatively and within the time
act
ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, or provided by the statute.

extinguished.
Possession is a continuing right as in the

Test : Would the owner of the property right to defend such possession. So it
in an action at law brought by the has been determined that an owner of
Page | 21
real property in possession has a

continuing menace to his title. Such
menace is compared to a continuing
nuisance or trespass, not barred by  Each co-owner has full ownership of
statute until continued without his part, and of his share in the fruits and
interruption for a length of time benefits (Art. 493);
sufficient to affect a change of title as a
matter of law. (see also: Sapto vs
Fabiano, 103 Phil 683; Bucton vs Gabar,  He may alienate, assign or mortgage
55 SCRA 499; Dignos vs CA, 158 SCRA his ideal share. (Art. 493);
375; Coronel vs IAC, 155 SCRA 270;
Solid State vs CA, 196 SCRA 630)
What governs co-ownership?
CO-OWNERSHIP
a. Contracts; in default thereof:
Art. 484. There is co-ownership b. Special legal provisions;

whenever the ownership of an undivided
c. The law on co-ownership.
thing or right belongs to different
persons. In default of contracts, or of
special provisions, co-ownership shall be
governed by the provisions of this title. Sources of co-ownership:
Note : Under this article, co-ownership may

exist as to rights, and is not limited to
corporeal things. (see: Samaniego vs
 LAW - party walls; party
ditches; intestate succession; properties
Villajin C.A OG 3137) acquired by a man and a woman whose
marriage is void;
In Javier vs Javier, 5 Phil 78, when a

house is owned by one person, and the  CONTRACT - two persons buy
lot by another, there is no co-ownership a parcel of land sharing in the purchase
created over the properties. price and agree not to divide the land for
ten years;
Characteristics : (Co-ownership may also be

referred to as Tenancy in common)
 CHANCE - commixtion,
confusion, hidden treasure;
1.) Plurality of subjects;
2.) Singularity or unity of object;  WILL - when two persons are

named as legatees or devisees of an
3.) Recognition of ideal shares.
undivided thing;
In de Guia vs CA, 413 SCRA 114, the SC held

that there is no co-ownership when the
different portions owned by different  OCCUPATION - Punzalan vs
people are already concretely Boon Liat; 44 Phil 320, when a wild beast
determined and separately identifiable is caught by several persons.
even if not yet technically described.
Rules regarding ideal share:

Rule on the shares of co-owners in the
Page | 22
benefits and charges (Art. 485) : tolerance cannot be the basis of

prescription.
a. The share in the benefits and charges is

proportional to the interest of each.
Hence, if one co- owner owns 2/3, he
shares 2/3 of the taxes; In AGUILAR VS COURT OF APPEALS, 227
SCRA 472, it was held that being a co-
b. Contrary stipulation is VOID. To do so owner respondent has the right to use
would be to run against the nature of the house and lot without paying any
co-ownership;
compensation to the petitioner, as he
may use the property owned in common
so long as it is in accordance with the
c. Each co-owner shares purpose for which it is intended and in a
proportionately in the accretion or manner not injurious to the interest of
alluvium of the property. This is the other co-owners.
because an increase in area benefits
all.
Each co-owner of property held pro
indiviso exercises his rights over the
LIMITATIONS on co-owner’s right to use the thing whole property and may use and enjoy
owned in common (Art. 486) the same with no other limitation than
that he shall not injure the interest of his
co-owners, the reason being that until a
division is made, the respective share of
 Can be used only according to

each cannot be determined and every
co-owner exercises, together with his
the purpose for which it was intended. co-participants joint-ownership over the
pro indiviso property, in addition to his
use and enjoyment of the same.
To determine the purpose for which the
property is intended, the agreement of
the co-owners (express or implied)
should govern.
govern. In default of any
agreement :
 The right to use must not
prejudice the interest of the co-ownership;
a) that to which the thing is ordinarily
adapted according to its nature or

A co-owner cannot devote community
property to his exclusive use to the
prejudice of the co-ownership. Thus,
b) the use to which it has been where the co-owners have agreed to
previously lease a building owned in common, a co-
owner cannot retain it for his use
devoted.
without paying the proper rent.
Thus, if the co-owners of a vessel agree that

it shall be used as a warehouse or
storage place for grain, one of the co-
 The right to use must not be
owners cannot order the grain removed exercised to prevent the others from
and use the vessel for maritime making use thereof according to their own
transportation. Mere tolerance on the right.
part of the co-owners cannot legalize the
change in the use of the thing from that
intended by the co-owners. Prescription The right of enjoyment by each co-
cannot be invoked to establish a right to owner is limited by a similar right of
such different use, because mere
Page | 23
others. Hence, if the thing is a dwelling In determining alterations, it is

house, all the co-owners may live sometimes necessary to consider the
therein with their respective families, to nature of the thing itself. Thus, when a
the extent possible. But if one co-owner thing does not require any modification
alone occupies the entire house without for its enjoyment, whatever
opposition of the others, and there is no modifications or change that is made will
agreement to lease it, the other co- be considered an alteration. But when a
owners cannot demand the payment of thing in its nature requires changes,
rents. such an industry or business, in its
exploitation, such modifications and
variations should be considered as
falling under acts of administration.
They can either exercise an equal right
to live in the house, or agree to lease it;
if they fail to do so, they must bear the
consequences. It would be unjust to REMINDERS :
require the co-owner to pay rents after
the other co-owners by their silence
have allowed him to use the property.
 Article 491 requires unanimity

of consent, whether tacit or express.
Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall

without the consent of the others, make
alterations in the thing owned in
common, even though benefits for all
 Effect of tacit consent -
although the co-owner who is deemed to
would result therefrom. However, if the
have tacitly consented to the alteration
withholding of the consent by one or
cannot ask for the demolition, neither
more of the co-owners is clearly
can he be held liable to answer for any
prejudicial to the common interest, the
part of the expenses incurred therein,
courts may afford adequate relief.
because the obligation to pay such
expenses cannot be deemed to be the
subject of his tacit consent.
Alteration is a change :
In PNB vs CA, 98 SCRA 207 in rel. to

- which is more or less permanent; Castro vs Atienza, 53 SCRA 264, the SC
said that the alienation of a common
- which changes the use of the property by a co-owner without the
unanimous consent of all the co-owners
thing; and
is void not because the nature of the
- which prejudices the condition of thing had been changed or altered, but
because of the lack of unanimous
the thing or its enjoyment by the consent required by law – as acts of
alienation such as sale, donation,
others.
mortgage, lease for more than one year,
etc. are acts of ownership which could
be exercised only by all. The transaction
It is also a change (not limited to is valid only with respect to the share of
physical) of state of the thing or the the co-owner alienating.
withdrawal of the use from that
intended.
What are the rights of a co-owner with

regard to his ideal share?
Example: sale; donation; or mortgage of
the property.
In Go Ong vs CA, 154 SCRA 270, it was

held that under the provisions of Art.
Page | 24
493, the heirs as co-owners shall each

have the full ownership of his part and
the fruits and benefits pertaining to it.
An heir may, therefore alienate, assign
When there exists a PROHIBITION,
PROHIBITION,
or mortgage it, and even substitute
because :
another person in its enjoyment, except
when personal rights are involved. But
the effect of alienation or mortgage,
with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion which may be
allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership. [see • of the existence of an
also : PNB vs CA, 98 SCRA 207] AGREEMENT between the parties
In Lopez vs Ilustre, 5 Phil 576, it was - not more than 10 years, extendible
held that what a co-owner may dispose by a new agreement after the
of is only his undivided share, which termination of the original period;
shall be limited to the portion which may hence, no automatic renewal,
be allotted to him upon the termination otherwise, the intention of the law
of the co-ownership. He has no right to would be defeated.
divide the property into parts and then
convey one part by metes and bounds. - If more than 10 years, void as to
the excess;
- If prohibition is perpetual, valid only

Art. 494. up to 10 years;
General Rule : - If agreement is subject to a resolutory

condition, the agreement ends upon
No co-owner shall be obliged to remain
fulfillment of the condition provided
in the co-ownership. Each co-owner
it does not exceed 10 years.
may demand at any time the partition of
the thing owned in common, insofar as
his share is concerned.
• the LAW does not allow

partition; (conjugal partnership as a
general rule);
Reasons :
• of the WILL of the donor or
•
testator; (the prohibition may be up
To avoid conflicts in to 20 years);
management;
• the legal NATURE of the

• The law discourages co- property does not allow partition
(i.e. automobile, partition shall
ownership;
proceed in accordance with the rules
set forth under Art. 498).
• The disposition or enjoyment of
the thing owned in common is
subject to the desire of all co- Note:
Note: As a general rule, prescription
owners.
against a co-owner does not lie.
Exceptions :
In Aguilar vs CA, 227 SCRA 472, in rel. to
Page | 25
Salvador vs CA, 243 SCRA 239, the SC

held that : Partition means the
segregation or division of a property in
• When a co-owner gives notice
to the other co-owners that he is
common to those to whom it belongs in
repudiating the co-ownership and
parts. A co-owner has the right to
that he is claiming ownership of the
demand at anytime the partition or
entire property;
segregation of his share in the thing
owned in common. The right to demand
partition does not prescribe as long as
the co-ownership is recognized.
• The requirement of continuous,
open, public, adverse possession for
the period of time required must be
met;
In order that the title may prescribe

in favor of a co-owner, the following Note :
requisites must concur: (ROBLES VS.
CA 328 SCRA 97)
a. The co-owner has performed unequivocal Acts which may be considered adverse
acts of repudiation amounting to an insofar as strangers are concerned, may
ouster of the other co-owners; not be considered adverse insofar as co-
owner are concerned. In other words, it
b. Such positive acts of repudiation have been is harder for a co-owner acquire
made known to the other co-owners; properties of strangers. Hence, mere
actual possession by one co-owner will
c. The evidence thereof is clear and
not give rise to the inference that the
convincing.
possession was adverse. This is because
a co-owner is after all entitled to
possession of the property. There must
In Robles vs CA,
CA, the SC ruled that : indeed be a definite repudiation and the
Hilario did not have possession of the possession is to the exclusion of other
subject property; neither did he exclude co-owners..
petitioners from the use and enjoyment
thereof, as they have indisputably
shared in its fruits. Likewise, his act of
In Salvador vs CA, 243 SCRA 239, it was
entering into the mortgage contract with
held that a mere silent possession by a
the bank cannot be construed to be a
co-owner, his receipts of rents, fruits or
repudiation of the co-ownership. As an
profits from the property, the erection
absolute owner of his undivided interest
of buildings and fences and the planting
in the land, he had the right to alienate
of trees thereon, and the payment of
his share, as he in fact did. Neither
land taxes, cannot serve as proof of
should his payment of land taxes in his
exclusive ownership, if it is not borne
name, as agreed upon by the co-owners,
out by clear and convincing evidence
be construed as repudiation of the co-
that he exercised acts of possession
ownership. The assertion that the
which unequivocably constituted an
declaration of the co-ownership was
ouster or deprivation of the rights of the
tantamount to repudiation was belied by
other co-owners.
the continued occupation and possession
of the disputed property by the
petitioners as owners.
Note :
Exception :
The period of prescription commences
from the date of the repudiation.
POSSESSION
Page | 26
POSSESSION, meaning of :
1 – The mere holding of a thing without

the title, or the holding of a thing in
Art. 523: Possession is the holding of a violation of the rights of the owner.
thing or the enjoyment of a right.
Example: A thief possesses a thing

What is the relationship between without title and in violation of the right
ownership and possession? of the owner.
As a general rule, possession is an 2 – Possession with juridical title, but not

element of ownership.
ownership. However, this is that of ownership.
not absolute, there are circumstances
whereby the owner of the thing does not Example: 1. Contract of lease;
possess the thing.
2. Usufruct
Essential Requisites of Possession :

(Must concur) Possession by : tenant; depository;
bailee; or lessee.
1– Holding, maybe actual or

constructive, the body of thing or the All these have juridical titles but they are
corpus. (There is occupancy, taking or not the owners.
apprehension)
2 – Intent to hold it, the animus or

3 – Possession with just title not sufficient to
desire.
possess ownership. (a.k.a. real
3 – The possession must be by virtue of possessory right.);
one’s own right. Hence, an agent who
holds is not truly in possession; it is the
principal who possesses thru the agent. Example: “A” in good faith buys an
automobile from “B” who delivers the
same to “A”, and who merely pretended
Classes of possession: to be the owner thereof.
4 – Possession with a title of
• Possession is one’s own name dominium.

or possession in the name of
another; (see Art. 524)
This is possession arising from
• Possession in the concept of an

ownership.
owner or possession in the concept

of a holder; (see Art. 525)
What are the concepts of possession?
• Possession in good faith or

Art. 525. The possession of things or
possession in bad faith. (See Art.
rights may be had in one of two
526)
concepts: either in the concept of owner,
What are the Degrees of Possession?
Possession? or in that of the holder of the thing or
Page | 27
right…. unlawful detainer
In Pajuyo vs CA, 430 SCRA 492, the SC

held that : “Prior possession is not
•
always a condition sine qua non in
In the concept of an owner : ejectment. This is one of the distinctions
between forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is
deprived of physical possession of his
It is the possession by the owner land or building by means of force,
himself or by a person who CLAIMS threat, strategy or stealth. Thus, he must
to be and ACTS as the owner, allege and prove prior possession. But in
whether he is in good faith or in bad unlawful detainer, the defendant
faith. He possesses the thing in unlawfully withholds possession after
such a way that he makes people the expiration or termination of his right
believe or see that he is the owner to possess under any contract, express
and recognizes no title or ownership or implied. In such case, prior physical
in another. possession is not required.
Possession in the concept of owner vs Torrens title
In Apostol vs. CA, 432 SCRA 351, the SC ruled

that the presumption of ownership granted by
law to a possessor in the concept of an owner
• In the concept of holder :
under Art 541 is only prima-facie and cannot

prevail over a valid title registered under the
Torrens System. It is an accepted rule that a Here, the possessor recognizes
person who has a torrens title over the another to be the owner.
property is entitled to the possession thereof.
Examples:
In Occena vs Esponilla, 431 SSCRA 116, the
SC ruled that the defense of indefeasibility of
Torrens title does not extend to a transferee
who takes the certificate of title in bad faith Tenant;
with notice of a flaw. A buyer of real property
Usufructuary;
in the possession of persons other than the
seller must be wary and should investigate the Depositary;
rights of those in possession otherwise he can
hardly be regarded as buyer in good faith and Bailee in commodatum.
cannot have any right over the property.
What is the nature of possession by a lessee?
Prior possession, not necessary in a suit for unlawful
detainer In MAGLUCOT-AW VS. MAGLUCOT, 329
SCRA 78, it was held that one who
In a case for unlawful detainer, as when the possesses as a mere holder
new owner of the house ejects the tenant acknowledges in another a superior
therefrom, is prior physical possession an right which he believes to be ownership,
indispensable requisite on the part of the new whether his belief is right or wrong.
owner?
In Jose M. T. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals,

In Apostol vs. CA, 432 SCRA 351, the SC ruled et. al., G.R. No. 113140, August 10,
that “the fact that the respondents were never 1999, the SC held that possessor who is
in prior physical possession of the subject land merely tolerated by owner is a possessor
is of no moment, as prior physical possession in the concept of holder and such
is necessary only in forcible entry cases.” possession does not hinder a valid
transfer of ownership by the owner thru
its sale to another.
Distinction : Proof of possession in forcible entry and
Page | 28
In Servando Mangahas vs. Court of of good faith.

Appeals, G.R. No. 95815, March 10,
1999, it was ruled that there can be no AWARENESS of any FLAW is question of
knowledge.
acquisitive prescription of land in favor
of the possessor if the possession is in
the concept of holder.
holder.
 If he is not aware – GOOD

In Sotera Paulino Marcelo, et. al. vs. CA, FAITH. There is always a presumption
G.R. No. 131803. April 14, 1999, the SC that every possessor is a possessor in
ruled : "Acquisitive prescription is a good faith. (see Art. 527)
mode of acquiring ownership by a
possessor through the requisite lapse of
time. In order to ripen into ownership,  If he is aware – BAD FAITH.
possession must be in the concept of an This is purely personal to the possessor. It
owner,
owner, public, peaceful and may not necessarily be transmitted to the
uninterrupted. heir.
Thus, mere possession with a juridical In Sotera Paulino Marcelo, et. al. vs. CA,
title, such as, to exemplify, by a G.R. No. 131803. April 14, 1999, the SC
usufructuary, a trustee, a lessee, an ruled that transferee of an unregistered
agent for a pledgee, not being in the parcel of land for value from a buyer and
concept of an owner, cannot ripen into who took immediate possession thereof
ownership by acquisitive prescription, has the benefit of good faith in his favor.
unless the juridical relation is first Ordinary acquisitive prescription of 10
expressly repudiated and such years is applicable.
repudiation has been communicated to
the other party.
In Republic vs. CA, 102 SCRA 331, it was

held that a party’s mere refusal to
Acts of possessory character executed believe that a defect exists and his
due to license or by mere tolerance of willful closing of his eyes to the
the owner would likewise be inadequate. possibility of the existence of a defect in
Possession, to constitute the foundation his vendor’s title will not make him an
of a prescriptive right, must be en innocent purchaser for value if it
concepto de dueno, or, to use the afterwards develop that the title was in
common law equivalent of the term, that fact defective.
defective. Hence, if circumstances
possession should be adverse; if not, exist that require a prudent man to
such possessory acts, no matter how investigate, he will be in bad faith if he
long, do not start the running of the does not investigate. [see: Leung Lee
period of prescription.”
prescription.” vs. Strong, 37 Phil. 464]
POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH AND

POSSESSION IN BAD FAITH
In REPUBLIC VS. DE GUZMAN, 326 SCRA
267, the SC ruled that the burden of
proving the status of purchaser in good
faith and for value lies upon him who
asserts that status. In discharging the
burden, it is not enough to invoke the
Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in ordinary presumption of good faith.
good faith who is not aware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition
any flaw which invalidates it. He is “The rule is settled that a buyer of real
deemed a possessor in bad faith who property which is in possession of
possesses in any case contrary to the persons other than the seller must be
foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or wary and should investigate the rights of
difficult question of law may be the basis who is in possession. Otherwise,
Page | 29
without such inquiry, the buyer can

hardly be regarded as buyer in good
faith.” In Medina vs Greenfield Dev. Corp., the SC
held that : “… the execution of the deeds of
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION conveyance is already deemed equivalent to
delivery of the property and prior physical
possession is not required. Possession is also
transferred, along with ownership thereof, by
Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the
virtue of the notarized deeds of conveyances.
material occupation of a thing or the
Under Art 1498 of the Civil Code, when the
exercise of a right, or by the fact that it
sale is made through a public instrument, the
is subject to the action of our will, or by
execution thereof shall be equivalent to
the proper acts and legal formalities
delivery of the object of the contract.
established for acquiring such right.
Three ways of acquiring possession:
1. Material occupation of the

 In donations, there is no need
thing/exercise of a right. of delivery. The moment the donation is in
the form provided by law, the donee is
deemed to be in possession of the thing
donated. Ownership is automatically
 Holding, apprehension, arrest, acquired by the donee.
occupancy. Occupation is used here in its
ordinary sense which means holding of a
thing which must be physical. (Also the
exercise of a right.)  In wills, upon the death of the
decedent if the will is valid, the heirs
mentioned in the will are deemed
2. By the action of our will. (By agreement) automatically, by fiction of law to be in
possession of the hereditary estate.
Actually and in truth, the heirs are not in
actual possession but by fiction of law, the
 Here, there is no actual physical possession by the decedent is deemed to
detention or seizure of the thing but the be continued without any interruption.
agreement between the parties Art. 533.
constitutes the fact of possession.
QUESTION : Who is the preferred possessor

3. Proper acts and legal formalities among claimants?
established by law. This is the legal
formality which gives rise to Can tax receipts and
possession. declarations be the basis of
claim of ownership through
prescription?
 These are certain
documents that can ordinarily give rise to
possession because of legal fiction. The
moment that document takes effect,
automatically, the person in whose favor In CEQUEÑA VS. BOLANTE, 330 SCRA
that documents is executed is deemed to 216, it was held that petitioners did not
have acquired possession of that property. lose legal possession because possession
Page | 30
cannot be acquired through force or ruled that although tax declarations or

violence. For all intents and purposes, a realty tax payments of property are not
possessor even if physically ousted is conclusive evidence of ownership,
still deemed the legal possessor. Indeed, nevertheless, they are good indicia of
anyone who can prove prior possession, possession in the concept of owner for
regardless of its character, may recover no one in his right mind would be paying
such possession. taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or at least constructive
possession.
The respondent is the preferred
possessor because, benefiting from her
father’s tax declaration of the subject lot They constitute at least proof that the
since 1926, she has been in possession holder has a claim of title over the
thereof for a longer period. On the other property. The voluntary declaration of a
hand, petitioner’s father acquired joint piece of property and announces his
possession only in 1952. adverse claim against the State and all
other interested parties, but also the
intention to contribute needed revenues
for the government. Such an act
strengthens one’s bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership.
Tax receipts and declarations of

ownership, when coupled with proof of
Who may acquire possession?
actual possession of the property,
property, can be
the basis of a claim for ownership One who is in full possession of his civil
through prescription. Respondent’s capacity can acquire possession of a
possession was not disturbed until 1953 thing or a right through any of the three
when the petitioner’s father claimed the ways of acquiring possession as
land. But by then, her possession, which provided in Art. 531 (i.e. : 1. Material
was in the concept of an owner – public, occupation of the thing; 2. By the action
peaceful and uninterrupted – had of our will; 3. Proper acts and legal
already ripened into ownership. formalities established by law.) or may
Furthermore, she herself after her (under Art. 432):
father’s demise, declared and paid realty
taxes for the disputed land.
1. Acquire through his representative;
Tax declarations and receipts are not 2. By his agent;

conclusive evidence of ownership. At
most, they constitute mere prima facie 3. By any person without any power
proof of ownership or possession of the whatsoever (negotiorum gestio)
property for which taxes have been paid.
In the absence of actual, public and
adverse possession, the declaration of Note: The possession of a person
the for tax purposes does not prove without power cannot be acquired
ownership. without the ratification of the person in
whose name the act of possession was
executed.
The petitioners, despite 32 years of
farming the subject land, did not acquire
ownership by mere occupation. Unless QUESTION : May minors and
coupled with the element of hostility incapacitated persons acquire
toward the true owner, occupation and possession?
use, however long, will not confer title
by prescription or adverse possession.
ANSWER : Minors and incapacitated

persons may acquire possession in those
In Republic vs CA, 258 SCRA 712, the SC
Page | 31
matters where they have capacity to act 2. Mere tolerance of the owner.
owner.
like in the case of physical seizure of res
nullius or donation of personalty
simultaneously delivered to them and
Concept – Acts merely tolerated
not possession where juridical acts are
are those allowed by the owner not by
imperative like donations of realty
reason of duty or obligation but by the
where minors and incapacitated persons
impulse of sense of neighborliness or
have no juridical capacity to execute.
good familiarity with persons.
(see also: Art. 535.)
In Municipality of Nueva
QUESTION :
Caceres vs Director of Lands, 24 Phil
485 it was held that even assuming
that these acts continue, they do not
What are the affect possession. On the basis of
these acts, no right will be acquired by
circumstances that prescription.
cannot give rise to
possession? In Estrella vs Director of Lands, 106 Phil

911 in rel. to Yu vs de Lara, 116 Phil
1106, it was held that a person who
occupied another’s property at the
latter’s tolerance without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by
an implied promise to vacate it upon
1. Force, violence, intimidation.
intimidation.
demand, falling in which ejectment suit
is proper against him.
In Ayala de Roxas vs Maglanso, 8 Phil

745 in rel. to Moreno vs Goco, 26 Phil
3. Clandestine acts or secret
496, it was held that possession
acquired by force or violence does not possession.
possession.
affect possession because such
possession is not true possession
respected by law. For all purposes
They cannot give rise to possession, for
favorable to the true owner or
possession must be open.
possessor, his possession is not
considered interrupted. EFFECTS OF POSSESSION
Art. 539.
In Bishop of Lipa vs Mun. of San Jose, The right to be :

27 Phil 571, it was held that there is
force or violence in the acquisition, even
when the property was not forcibly
taken away from the owner, if the - Respected in his possession;
intruder occupied it during the absence
- Protected or restored to said possession by
of the owner and commits acts which
legal means in case of disturbance of
repel the return of the owner.
owner. another;
Reasons for the rule – To :
Page | 32
- prevent a positive attempt against
public order; In Chan vs CA,

CA, 33 SCRA 737, the clause
“he possesses with a just title and he
- avoid disturbances in the cannot be obliged to show or prove it”
means that, the possessor cannot be
community;
inquired about his ownership without
- prevent deprivation of property any valid reason,
reason, for he is presumed to
be the owner thereof. Anyone who
without due process of law; claims to be the true owner must resort
to judicial process for the recovery of the
- avoid taking into his own hands property.
the administration of justice.
Note: The term “just little” refers to true

and valid title – a title which by itself is
Remedies:
sufficient to transfer ownership without
the necessity of letting the period
elapse. (see: Diolente vs. Biarnessa, 7
1. Action for forcible entry – the Philippines 232)
unlawful deprivation of possession by
means of force, intimidation, stealth, Example: “B” brought a car from “S”, the
owner thereof. Then “S” delivered the
threat or strategy. Here, the
car to “B”. “B” now has a valid and true
dispossession arises from a situation title over the car. Thus, if “B” possesses
and drives the car around as an owner,
or condition under which a person can other people cannot compel him to prove
ownership thereof.
wrongfully enter upon a real property
and exclude another, who has had

Note: For purposes of prescription, “just
possession, therefrom. title” means colorable title – that title
where, although there was a mode of
2. Unlawful detainer action -
transferring ownership, still something
is wrong, because the grantor is not the
owner of the thing.
3. Accion publiciana – where the cause of
action arose more than one year prior to
the filing of the complaint to recover
Example: In the above example, if it turn
possession of real property, and
out that “S” is not the owner of the car
therefore the action for forcible entry
and somebody else was its owner, “B”
and detainer can no longer be instituted.
would not be considered as the owner
The issue here is who has the better
thereof because he did not acquire it
right of possession?
from the owner of the car, irrespective
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP whether or not he is in good faith.
However, for purposes of prescription,
his possession is just considered as “just
title” of the period required by law
Art. 541 – A possessor in the concept of
depending on whether he is in good faith
an owner has in his favor the legal
or not. Of in good faith – 4 years
presumption that he possesses with a
( personal property); in bad faith - 8
just title and he cannot be obliged to
years.
show or prove it.
Reasons for the presumption:

What does it mean by “he possesses
with a just title and he cannot be obliged
to show or prove it”?
Page | 33
•
fruits already received and to some
A possessor is always extent damages.
presumed to be in good faith.
• Because of the
In Calma vs Calma, 56 Phil 102, during
the time the possessor is considered in
inconvenience of carrying good faith, he is entitled to the fruits he
proofs of ownership around. had received out of the property he is
possessing. From the moment his good
faith had been converted into bad faith
Requisites in order that the principle – such as by judicial summons or
“Possession is presumed ownership” extraneous evidence, he loses that right
to apply: to retain the fruits.
1. One must be in possession, actual or In Mindanao Academy, Inc. vs Yap,Yap, 121

constructive; Phil. 204, before legal interruption, the
fruits received by the possessor in good
2. The possession must be in the concept of faith belong to him. But after judicial
an owner, not mere holder; (see: summons had been served upon the
Art. 540) possessor in good faith, his right to get
the fruits not yet gathered terminates.
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is

entitled to the fruits received before the NOTES :
possession is legally interrupted.
- Natural fruits are the spontaneous

Natural and industrial fruits are considered products of the soil, and the young and
received from the time they are gathered other products of animals;
or severed.
- Industrial fruits are those produced by lands
of any kind through cultivation or labor.
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily - Civil fruits are the fruits of buildings, the
and belong to the possessor in good price of leases of lands, and other
faith in that proportion. property and the amount of perpetual or
life annuities or other similar income.
Applicability of the article.

article.
When are fruits considered gathered?
The article applies to fruits only. It

cannot extend to other things like the Natural and industrial fruits – the
dismantled materials from a demolished moment they are gathered or severed.
house, part of the hidden treasure
pertaining to the owner of the land.
Civil fruits – deemed received on their

due date not actual payment.
Who are the possessors entitled to the
fruits?
fruits?
Illustration : “A” purchased an

apartment from “B” in good faith. “A”
Only possessors in good faith are leased the apartment to “C” who paid an
entitled to fruits. Possessors in bad faith advance rentals for 1 year in the total
on the other hand are not entitled to sum of PhP120,000.00 at the rate of
fruits but even required to reimburse the PhP10,000.00 per month. Six months
Page | 34
after “A” had leased the apartment, he

received judicial summons. He lost the
case to the plaintiff who was able to Rule : Every possessor is entitled to a
prove his superior right to the refund whether in good faith or bad
apartment. faith, except that the possessor in good
faith is entitled to right of retention of
the property until the refund is made.
Under the law, “A” must return the

rentals due the months after he received
the judicial summons. He must therefore 2. Useful expenses – those incurred to
return PhP60,000.00 to the true owner, add value to the property or increase
retaining at the same time the other productivity of the property.
PhP60,000.00
Examples : Construction of dining room,

QUESTION : What is the liability of possessor kitchen, closet and bathroom [Robles vs
in bad faith regarding fruits? Lizarraga Hermanos, 42 Phil. 584;
construction of irrigation system
[Valenzuela vs Lopez, 51 Phil. 279];
construction of artificial fishponds
a. As to fruits already received – return them [Rivera vs Archbishop of Manila, 40 Phil
is still existing or pay for their value if 717].
already spent;
b. As to growing, pending or ungathered

fruits – no rights whatsoever. Rule : Refundable only to possessors in
good faith with the same right of
retention as in necessary expenses.
In Director vs Abagat 53 Phil 147, in rel.

to Lerma vs dela Cruz, 7 Phil. 581, as
additional liability, he must render an NOTE : The possessor in good faith may
accounting of the fruits he had received remove the useful improvements he had
as well as the fruits he could have introduced provided that no substantial
received. He is also liable to pay for injury or damage would be caused to the
damages which must be equivalent of principal thing. In Javier vs Concepcion,
the reasonable rent for the occupation of 94 SCRA 212, the right to remove useful
the property during the period of his improvements is subject to the right of
possession in bad faith. the owner to keep the improvements
himself by paying the expenses incurred
or the concomitant increase in value of
the property caused by the
Note : In MWSS vs CA,
CA, 143 SCRA 623,
improvements. In other words, the
the right of removal granted to a
possessor’s right of removal is
possessor in bad faith applies only to
subordinate to the right of the owner to
improvements for pure luxury or mere
retain said improvements [Calagan vs
pleasure.
CFI, 95 SCRA 498].
RULE ON NECESSARY AND USEFUL EXPENSES
: [see Art. 546]
Expenses for luxury – those incurred to
cater to the personal comfort,
1. Necessary expenses are those convenience or enjoyment of the
incurred to preserve the property possessor.
without which, the said property will
physically deteriorate or be lost.
Examples : Major repairs of a house RULE : They are not refundable. The
[Angeles vs Lozada, 54 Phil 185]; rationale behind this denial is that the
expenses for cultivation, production and law does not compensate personal
upkeep of the property. [see : Mendoza whims and caprices. These
vs de Guzman, 52 Phil 104] improvements are purely for
Page | 35
embellishments and not for preservation 1. When the owner has lost the
of the property, or for increasing the
value or productivity of the property. thing;
2. When the owner has been
Examples : Paintings of murals on unlawfully deprived of the thing;

concrete fence; scenic painting placed in
the wall of bathroom.
Exception to the exception:
RULE ON IRREIVINDICABILITY
When the possessor had acquired the thing

Art. 559. The possession of movable
in good faith at a public sale. (public
property acquired in good faith is
auction sale)
equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one
who has lost any movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof may recover
it from the person in possession of the [Note: Here, the owner of the thing shall
same. If the possessor of a movable lost REIMBURSE the price paid.]
or of which the owner has been
unlawfully deprived, has acquired in
good faith at a public sale, the owner
cannot obtain its return without
reimbursing the price paid therefore.
Instances where there could be NO

RECOVERY even if owner offers
Acquired in good faith here means the
reimbursement:
possessor is of the belief that the person
from whom he received the thing was its 1. If possessor acquired the thing in good
owner and could transfer valid title faith by purchase from a MERCHANT
thereto. STORE or in FAIRS or in MARKETS, in
accordance with the code of COMMERCE
of special laws (see Art. 1505, NCC and
Requisites for title: Art 85 of the Code of Commerce);
2. If owner is by his own conduct precluded

from denying the seller’s authority to
1. That the possession is in good faith; sell (Estoppel); see: Art. 1505, NCC;
2. That the owner has voluntarily parted with

the possession of the thing;
3. Holders in due course; Art. 1518, NCC;
3. That the possession is in the concept of an
owner. 4. Finders of lost article after lapse of six (6)
months; Art. 719, NCC;
5. Acquisitive prescription; Art. 1132, NCC

Note: Under this situation, if the (real) (good faith – 4 years; bad faith – 8
owner gets the thing, he must years).
REIMBURSE.
UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVED,
DEPRIVED, meaning of :
EDCA PUBLISHING vs SANTOS

Exceptions to the rule: [Note:
184 SCRA 614
Here, there is NO
REIMBURSEMENT.]
REIMBURSEMENT.]
FACTS: On October 5, 1981, a person
identifying himself as Prof. Jose Cruz of
Page | 36
De la Salle College placed an order via particularly Art. 1478 that ownership in
telephone for 406 pcs of books with the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer
EDCA Publishing payable on delivery until full payment of the purchase price
(COD). EDCA prepared the only if there is a stipulation to that
corresponding invoice and delivered the effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such
books as ordered, for which Cruz issued ownership shall pass from the vendor to
a personal check covering the purchase the vendee upon the actual or
price of P8,995.65. On October 7, 1981, constructive delivery of the thing sold
Cruz sold 120 pcs of the books to Leonor even if the purchase price has not yet
Santos who, after verifying the seller’s been paid. Non-payment creates a right
ownership from the invoice Cruz showed to demand payment or to rescind the
her, paid him P1,700.00. contract, or to criminal prosecution in
the case of bouncing checks. But absent
the stipulation above noted, delivery of
the thing sold will effectively transfer
Meanwhile, EDCA having became
ownership to the buyer who can in turn
suspicious over a second order placed by
transfer it to another.
Cruz even before clearing of his first
check, made inquiries with Della Sale
College where he had claimed to be dean
and was informed that there was no In Tagactac vs. Jimenez, the plaintiff
such person in its employ. Further sold the car to Feist, who sold it to
verification revealed that Cruz had no Sanchez, who sold it to Jimenez, when
more account or deposit with the the payment check issued to Tagactac by
Philippine Amanah Bank, against which Feist was dishonored, the plaintiff sued
he had drawn the payment check. EDCA to recover the vehicle from Jimenez on
then went to the police, which set a trap the ground that she had been unlawfully
and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981. deprived of it by reason of Feist’s
deception. In ruling for Jimenez, the
Court of Appeals held:
On the night of the same date, EDCA
sought the assistance of the police
which forced their way into the store of “The point of inquiry is whether plaintiff-
Santos and threatened her with appellant Trinidad C. Tagactac has been
prosecution for buying stolen property. unlawfully deprived of her car. At first
They seized the 120 books without blush, it would seem that she was
warrant, loading them in a van unlawfully deprived thereof, considering
belonging to EDCA, and thereafter, that she was induced to part with it by
turned them over to EDCA. Santos sued reason of the chicanery practiced on her
for the recovery of the books. EDCA by Feist. Certainly, swindling, like
contended that it can recover the books robbery, is an illegal method of
from Santos considering that EDCA was deprivation of property. In a manner of
unlawfully deprived thereof since the speaking, plaintiff-appellant was
check issued by the impostor was “illegally deprived” of her car, for the
dishonored thus, nullifying the contract way by which Feist induced her to part
of sale between it and the impostor. with it is illegal and punishable by law.
But does this “unlawful deprivation”
come within the scope of Art. 559 of the
New Civil Code?
HELD: Art. 1477 of the Civil Code
provides that the ownership of the thing
sold shall be transferred to the vendee
upon the actual or constructive delivery The fraud and deceit practiced by Feist
thereof. Art. 1478 also provides that the earmarks this sale as a voidable contract
parties may stipulate that ownership in (Art 1390 NCC). Being a voidable
the thing shall not pass to the purchaser contract, it is susceptible of either
until he has fully paid the price. ratification or annulment. If the
contract is ratified, the action to annul it
is extinguished (Art 1392, NCC) and the
contract is cleansed from all its defects
It is clear from the above provisions,
(Art 1396, NCC); if the contract is
Page | 37
annulled, the contracting parties are AZNAR vs. YAPDIANGCO

restored to their respective situations
before the contract and mutual 13 SCRA 486
restitution follows as a consequence (Art
1398, NCC).
FACTS : Santos agreed to sell his car to

Marella for P14,700.00, the price to be
However, as long as no action is taken paid after the car is registered in the
by the party entitled, either that of name of Marella. After the execution of
annulment or of ratification, the contract the Deed of Sale, Santos together
of sale remains valid and binding. When Marella proceeded to the Motor Vehicles
plaintiff-appellant Tagactac delivered Office where the registration of the car
the car to Feist by virtue of said voidable in Marella’s name was effected. When
contract of sale, the title to the car Santos asked for payment, Marella told
passed to Feist. Of course, the title that him that he was short of P2,000.00 and
Feist acquired was defective and informed him that he would get from his
voidable. Nevertheless, at the time he sister. Together they rode in the car to
sold the car to Felix Sanchez, his title the supposed residence of his sister.
thereto had not been avoided and he Upon entering the house, Marella told
therefore conferred good title on the Santos to wait in the sala while he asked
latter; provided he bought the car in his sister for the money.
good faith, for value and without notice
of the defect in Feist title (Art 1506,
NCC) In the meanwhile, on the pretext that
Marella had to show his sister of the
registration papers of the car, Santos
The above rulings are sound doctrine gave them to Marella, who thereupon
and reflect our own interpretation of Art. entered the supposed room of his sister,
559 as applied to the case before us. ostensibly to show her the papers. That
Actual delivery of the books having been was the last time Santos saw Marella
made, Cruz acquired ownership over the and his car. In the meantime Marella
books which he could then validly succeeded in selling the car to Aznar
transfer to the private respondents. The who bought the same in good faith for
fact that he had not yet paid for them to P15,000.00. When Aznar was trying to
EDCA was a matter between him and register the car at the Motor Vehicles
EDCA and did not impair the title Office, the same was seized from him by
acquired by the private respondents to the Philippine Constabulary as a
the books. consequence of the report made to them
by Santos.
One may well imagine the adverse

consequences if the phrase “unlawfully The lower court decided in favor of
deprived” were to be interpreted in the Santos applying the provisions of Art
manner suggested by the petitioner. A 559 and concluded that he was
person relying on the seller’s title who “unlawfully deprived” of his property.
buys a movable property from him would On appeal, Aznar contended that Art.
have to surrender it to another person 1506 of the Civil Code and not Art 559 is
claiming to be the original owner who applicable. Art 1506 provides:
had not yet been paid the purchase price
therefor. The buyer in the second sale
would be left holding the bag, so to
speak and would be compelled to return
the thing bought by him in good faith “Art. 1506. Where the seller of goods
without even the right to reimbursement has a voidable title thereto, but his title
of the amount he had paid for it. has not been voided at the time of the
sale, the buyer acquired a good title to
the goods, provided he buys them in
Page | 38
good faith, for value, and without notice property of another, with the obligation
of the seller’s defect or title.” of preserving its form and substance
unless the title constituting it or the law
provides otherwise.
HELD: The contention is clearly
unmeritorious. Under the afore-quoted
provision, it is essential that the seller
should have a voidable title at least. It
is inapplicable where, as in this case, Rights of Full Owner = DISPOSE + USE +
the seller had no title at all. FRUITS
-------------
------------------
Marella did not have any title to the
property under litigation because the
same was never delivered to him.
him. He
sought ownership or acquisition of it by
virtue of the contract. Marella could
have acquired ownership or title to the
subject matter thereof only by the
delivery or tradition of the car to him.
The car in question was never delivered FULL OWNERSHIP = Naked Ownership +
to the vendee by the vendor as to Usufruct
complete or consummate the transfer of
ownership by virtue of the contract. It
should be recalled that while there was
indeed a contract of sale between
Santos and Marella, the latter as the Characteristics:
vendee, took possession of the subject
matter thereof by stealing the same
while it was in the custody of the 1. Real right;
former’s son.
2. Temporary in nature;
3. Purpose is to enjoy the benefits;

See: Cases
4. Obligation to conserve and preserve.
1. Del Rosario vs. Lucena, 8 Phil. 535

1 – 3 Essential (Usufruct cannot
2. Varela vs Finnick, 9 Phil 482
exist without these:
3. Arenas vs Raymundo, 19 Phil 46
4 Natural (Ordinarily present
4. US vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147
but may be eliminated by
USUFRUCT IN GENERAL
agreement).
Accidental (may or may not be present

Art. 562, Usufruct gives a right to enjoy depending upon the stipulation of the
the property of another with the parties)
obligation of preserving its forms and
substance, unless the title constituting it
or the law otherwise provides.
Usufruct, how created:
CONCEPT:
a. By law; (see Art. 225/226 of the Family
Code, in re: Art. 321 of the Civil
Code.)
Usufruct – the right to enjoy the
Page | 39
been planted by a possessor in good

faith, the pending crop expenses and
NOTE : charges shall be pro-rated between
said possessor and the usufructuary)
see : Art. 545, NCC;
 The property of an emancipated

child is owned exclusively by the child and - those growing at the time the
shall be devoted solely for his support and
usufruct terminates, belong to the
education. As to the fruits or income of
the property, the rights of the parents naked owner. (see: Art. 567, NCC)
over the same shall be limited only to the
child’s support and collective daily needs
of the family.
Here, the naked owner is
obligated to reimburse the expenses
incurred for the ordinary cultivation
b. By contract or agreement;
and seeds and other similar
c. By last will and testament. expenses from the proceeds of the
fruits. (Hence, the excess of
expenses over the proceeds need
not be reimbursed.)
Rules governing usufruct:
2. CIVIL Fruits:
Fruits: (Rents, pensions, benefits, etc.)
a. Agreement; (or the title giving the see: Art. 570, NCC.
usufruct)
b. Civil Code.
Rule: they shall be deemed to accrue
RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY proportionately to the naked owner
and usufructuary for the time the
usufruct lasts.
FIRST. The usufructuary shall be
entitled to all the natural, industrial and
civil fruits of the property in usufruct. Example: A gave B in usufruct the profits of a
With respect to hidden treasure which certain building for five (5) years.
may be found on the land or tenement,
the shall be considered a stranger.
(See : Art. 566)
a. If the usufruct lasts for the period stipulated, all
the profits during the said period will go to B.
Rules:
b. Suppose however, B died at the end of three (3)

years, and the following were the profits
1. Pending natural or industrial fruits:
fruits: from the building:
- growing at the time the usufruct Yr. 1 – P10,000.00

begins
Yr. 2 - P20,000.00
belong to the usufructuary;
Yr. 3 – P30,000.00*
Yr. 4 – P20,000.00
Here, the usufructuary has no
obligation to refund for the expenses Yr. 5 – P40,000.00
but without prejudice to the right of
third persons. (Thus, if the fruits had ---------------
Page | 40
P120,000.00
Ratio is 3:2, thus :

• Enjoy the thing itself or thru
another;
3(P120,000.00)/5 = P72,000.00 – share of B;

• Lease the thing to another (for a
period not longer than that of the
usufruct) even without the naked owner’s
2(P120,000.00)/5 = P48,000.00 – share of A. consent;
QUESTION : What is the nature of dividends? c. Alienate, sell, donate, bequeath, or

Who shall be entitled to them? devise, sell or pledge the usufructuary
right (not the thing itself or future crops,
for crops pending at the termination of
In Bachrach vs Siefert,
Siefert, 87 Phil 483, the usufruct belong to the naked owner.)
dividends from shares in a corporation are civil
fruits whether in the form of cash or stock
dividends. They are not part of the capital, FOURTH.
FOURTH. The usufructruary has the right to
hence, they belong to the usufructuary. MAKE USE of things included in usufruct
which gradually deteriorate without being
consumed, through wear and tear, in
QUESTION : Are usufructuary rights exempt accordance with the purpose for which they
from execution? were intended. (a.k.a. Abnormal Usufruct)
see: Art. 573.
In Vda. De Bogacki vs Inserto,

Inserto, 111 SCRA
356, usufructuary rights can be disposed of by Examples: clothes, furniture, vehicles, books,
the usufructuary, thus, he can transfer, etc.
assign, or alienate such rights. In the same
vein, these rights may be subjected to a writ
of execution, not being exempt therefrom. Effect of the deterioration:
deterioration:
SECOND.
SECOND. The usufructuary has the right to the a. Because of normal use – the usufructuary
enjoyment of: is not liable. He can return them in the
conditions they might be in at the termination
of the usufruct. There is no necessity for him
to make any repairs to restore them to their
• Accessions (whether artificial or
former condition. Although there is no express
provision on the matter, if the usufructuary
natural); does not return the things upon the expiration
of the usufruct, he shall pay an indemnity for
• Servitudes and easements;

the value of the thing at the time such
expiration.
• All benefits inherent in property b. Because of fortuitous event -

(i.e.: the right to hunt and fish therein, usufructuary is obliged to make the
the right to construct rain water necessary and ordinary repairs (see art.
receptacles) see: Art. 571, NCC; 592). But the mere deterioration thru
normal use does not require the ordinary
repairs referred to under art. 592.
THIRD. The usufructuary, in addition to the c. Because of fraud - the usufructuary is

usufruct (as a right) may : (see: Art. 572)
Page | 41
responsible. But such liability make be 2. He is not entitled to a refund but either remove
set off against improvements. (see: Art. the improvement if no substantial damage to
580); the property is caused (see Art 579); or to set
off (compensate) the improvements against
damages for which he may be liable (see: Art.
580). His right does not involve an obligation,
FIFTH. The usufructuary has the right to MAKE
hence, if the usufructuary does not wish to
USE of consumable things in usufruct.
exercise it, he cannot be compelled by the
(a.k.a. quasi-usufruct,
quasi-usufruct, see art. 574)
naked owner to remove his improvements.
The option to remove is granted to the
usufructuary.
Note: (the principle of creditor-debtor relationship
applies)
Rule in case of set off: (see. Art. 580)
Here, the usufructuary becomes the owner of

the things (consumable) in usufruct, such as a
a. If damage is greater than the improvement -
sum of money or a quantity of liquid of grain
usufructuary is liable for the excess;
but he has the obligation to pay for their
current price or return the things of the
same quantity and quality at the time the
usufruct ceases. b. If improvement is greater than the damage -
the naked owner is not liable to refund the
excess.
SIXTH. The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and
shrubs has the right to make use of the dead
trunks, and even of those cut off or uprooted Rule. If a co-owner of a property gives the
by accident. (a.k.a. special usufruct)
usufruct) see: usufruct of his share to another: (see. Art.
Art. 575. 582)
Note: here, the usufructuary is obliged to The usufructuary takes the co-owner’s place as to :
replace with new plants.
SEVENTH. The usufructuary has the right to make:

• Administration or management;
• Useful improvements;
• Collection of fruits or interest (but
not as to alienation, disposition, or creation
of any real right over the property, since
•
these are strict acts of ownership, unless
Luxurious improvements for mere authorized by the naked owner.)
pleasure.
Effect of Partition:
However:
1. The usufructuary continues to have the usufruct

of the part allotted to the
• He must not alter the form or co-owner concerned.

substance of the properly held in
usufruct, unless the naked owner
consents; Note:
Note: the co-owner may partition the
property even without the consent of the
Page | 42
usufructuary and the partition is binding upon b.) In case of waiver by the naked owner;
the usufructuary. However, the naked owner or when there is stipulation (in a will or
(co-owner) must respect the usufructuary. contract).
OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
Security is not required when :
The usufructuary has obligations :
a.) No one will be injured thereby (as in the

case of usufruct over a periodical pension or
a) Before the usufruct; incorporeal right (see: Art. 570), provided the
naked owner consents for the law says “may”
b) During the usufruct;
usufruct; and
(see : Art. 585);
c) After the usufruct.
b.) In case of waiver by the naked owner; or when

Art. 583: there is stipulation (in a will or contract).
GENERAL RULE :
c.) When the usufructuary is the donor of the

property (who has reserved the usufruct).
The usufructuary BEFORE entering upon the (The naked owner should be grateful
enjoyment of the property is enough not to require the security.);
OBLIGED:
d.) In cases of caucion juratoria (promise under

oath), see: Art. 587.
a.) To make after notice to the owner an
INVENTORY of all property which shall CAUTION JURATORIA,
JURATORIA, meaning of :
contain appraisal
appraisal of the movables and
description of the condition of the
immovables;
Art. 587. Caucion Juratoria – a sworn duty to
take good care of the property and return the
same at the end of the usufruct.
b.) To give SECURITY,
SECURITY, binding himself to fulfill the
obligations imposed upon him.
If a usufruct consists in:
Note:
Note: The obligation to make inventory and
to give security are not necessary in order for
a. Furnitures necessary for the use of the
the right to the usufruct begins but are merely
usufructuary;
required before physical possession and
enjoyment of the property can be had. b. House which his family may live;
EXCEPTION: c. Tools and implements and other

movables necessary for an industry or
Inventory is not required when:
vocation which the usufructuary is
engaged, and the usufructuary cannot
afford to give the required security, he
a.) No one will be injured thereby (as in the may file a petition before the courts to
case of usufruct over a periodical pension or allow him to enjoy possession of the said
incorporeal right (see: Art. 570), provided the properties in usufruct and swear under
naked owner consents for the law says “may” oath to take good care and return them
(see: Art. 585); at the end of the usufruct.
RULE ON ORDINARY REPAIRS:

REPAIRS:
Page | 43
debts contracted after the usufruct has

been made, unless there is a declaration to
Under Art. 592, the usufructuary is obliged to the contrary;
make the ordinary repairs needed by the thing
given in usufruct.
• Pay only for debts up to the value of
the property in usufruct unless, the
Note: These are repairs needed because of an contrary is intended.
event or an act that endangers the
preservation of the thing. (as distinguished
from deterioration under Art. 572).
If there is no stipulation to pay the debts of the
naked owner, apply Art. 759 :
Conditions for liability:
1. They are required by normal or natural use ;

- As a rule, there is no obligation to
pay;
2. They are needed for preservation;
3. They must have occurred during the usufruct; - The only exception is that when the
4. They must have happened with our without the usufruct was constituted in fraud of
fault of the usufructuary; creditors.
Note: If the naked owner had demanded the “In fraud of creditor”
creditor” – when at the time of
repair, and the usufructuary still fails to do so, the constitution of the usufruct, the naked
the owner may make them personally or thru owner did not reserve sufficient property to
another at the expense of the pay his debts. This is presumed.
usufructuary.
RULE ON EXTRA-ORDINARY REPAIRS :

QUESTION : May usufruct be constituted
over a real property in favor of an alien?
Art. 593. Extraordinary repairs shall be at the

expense of the owner.
owner. The usufructuary is
In Ramirez vs vda. De Ramirez,
Ramirez, 111 SCRA
obliged to notify the owner when the need for
704, a usufruct over parcels of land made by a
such repairs is urgent.
Filipino in favor of an Austrian woman is valid
because ownership of the land is not vested in
the usufructuary. What is proscribed by the
Rules governing the payment of debts of Constitution is ownership by an alien.
the naked owner if the usufruct is a universal
one (constituted on the whole of a patrimony; EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES
and the naked owner has debts or is obliged
to make periodical payments.
Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon
an immovable for the benefit of :
If there is stipulation to pay the debts of the
naked owner:
a. Community; ]
personal
Apply Art. 758:
b. One or more persons; ]
easement
c. Another immovable ]
• Pay only for prior debts and not for belonging to a different owner ] real
Page | 44
easement. INSEPARABILITY – easements or servitudes

are merely accessories to the tenements to
(see Art. 614) which they are appurtenant. They are
inseparable, hence, intransmissible. They
cannot be alienated separately from the
Immovable,
Immovable, meaning of - the term tenements to which they pertain. Thus, they
“immovable” must be construed in its common cannot be alienated independently of the real
and not legal sense. Hence it refers to property to which they are attached.
immovables by nature, such as lands, roads
and buildings.
In Valisno vs Adriano,
Adriano, 161 SCRA 398, the
alienation of tenements carries with it the
Servient estate - is one which is burdened alienation of the servitudes pertaining to
by a servitude; them.
Dominant estate - is one that is benefited as a INDIVISIBILITY – Both dominant and

result of an easement. servient estate may be divided between two
or more persons. But the partition will not
modify the easement. Each of the servient
owners shall bear the burden of the easement
In Quimen vs CA, CA, 257 SCRA 163, an
on the part corresponding to his share in the
easement is a real right on another’s property,
immovable property.
corporeal and immovable for the benefit of
another immovable, whereby the owner of the
latter must refrain from doing or allow
somebody else to do or something to be done EASEMENTS may also be :
on his property, for the benefit of another
person or tenement. It is inseparable,
indivisible and perpetual, unless extinguished 1. According to the MANNER they are exercised or
by causes provided by law. used :
CHARACTERISTICS of Easement :
CONTINUOUS easements - are

1. It is a real right; those the use of which is or may be
INCESSANT (without any interruption)
2. Imposable only against another’s property and or without the intervention of any act
never in one’s own property; it can exist of man;
only when the servient estate and the
dominant estate belong to two different
owners; Note : Here, for easement to be “continuous”
the use does not have to be without
3. It is a form of limitation on ownership and a
interruption; it is enough that it MAY BE
restriction on the enjoyment of one’s own
incessant;
property;
4. It is inseparable and indivisible; it cannot Note : The distinction between continuous

be separated from the tenement to which and discontinuous easements refers only to
it belongs or divided even if there is the exercise of the servitude, but not to the
division of the tenement; (see Arts. 617 & essence, because the servitude exists
618) continuously, whether it is being used or not.
5. It is intransmissible (unless the tenement

affected is also transmitted or alienated; Examples :
6. It is perpetual unless extinguished.
Easements of drainage - the fact that
Page | 45
water flows in it signifies continuous use

but the absence of any flow does not
make it non-continuous. It is enough Examples : (in general, negative
that the flow of water may be without easements)
interruption;
Easement of not building to a more than

Easements of aqueduct - it is certain height;
considered as continuous (at least, for
purposes of prescription) even though
the flow of water may not be A right of way if there is no visible path or
continuous, or its used depends upon the alley.
needs of the dominant estate, or upon a
schedule or alternate days or hours.
3. According to PURPOSE of the easement or

nature of the limitation :
DISCONTINUOUS Easements - they are used at

intervals and depend upon the acts of man. a. POSITIVE Easement - Here, the owner of the
servient estate is OBLIGED : (a.k.a
servitude of sufferance)
Example : - to allow something to be done on his

property; or
- to do something himself on his

Easement of right of way because it can be
property.
exercised only if a man passes or puts his feet
over somebody else’s land.
Example:
2. According to whether or not their EXISTENCE is

indicated: • Easement of light and view
on openings made on a PARTY
WALL.
a. APPARENT Easement - those made
known and continually kept in view by
external signs that reveal the use and
If one opens a window on a party wall the
enjoyment of the same.
other owner may close it anytime.
However, if he does not close it, and the
other owner acquires the easement by
Note : The sign need not be seen but should prescription, the other owner can no
be susceptible of being seen. longer close it. Therefore the owner of the
servient estate is allowing something to be
done on his property.
Example :
Note : Easement of light and view on a party

wall. Here, the owners of such wall permit the
- Dam;
encumbrance to burden their common wall.
- Window in a party wall visible to both owners;
- Right of way if there is an alley or a permanent

b. The owner of the servient estate has the
path.
duty to cut off the branches of his tree
extending over the neighboring estate.
b. NON-APPARENT Easements - they show no

external indication of their existence.
Page | 46
c. NEGATIVE Easements - Here, the by special or particular provisions.

owner of the servient estate is prohibited
to do something which he could lawfully
do were it not for the existence of the
easement. (a.k.a. servitude of limitation)
b. Discontinuous and apparent - only
by title;
Example:
c. Continuous and apparent - only by
Easement of light and view on openings made on
one’s OWN WALL. title;
d. Discontinuous and non-apparent -
When a person makes an opening on his own only by title.

wall to admit light below the ceiling joist, and
he acquires a servitude to admit such light,
the servitude is a negative one, because:
Rule (Art. 621) in order that continuous and
apparent easements may be acquired thru
prescription :
It imposes upon the owner of the adjacent
tenement the obligation not to construct on
his own land in such a manner as to obstruct
a. If easement is POSITIVE :
the light.
How are easements established ?

 The period of prescription is
counted from the day of the dominant estate
began to exercise it:
Art. 619. Easements are established either by
law (legal easements) or by the will of the
owners (voluntary easements).
Example : A and B are neighbors and they
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS own a party wall. If A makes an opening or
window in the party wall in 1988, B can close
it anytime before 1998. Because if by the
Art. 620. Continuous and apparent easements time the window is still open, A has
are acquired either by virtue of a title or by already acquired the easement of light and
prescription of ten years. view by prescription of 10 years, counted from
the opening of the window.
a. Continuous and apparent easements (meaning

they are continuous and apparent at the Note: A window on a party wall is something
same time) may be acquired by : allowed by a co-owner to be done on his own
property and may therefore give rise to a
positive easement of sufferance.
 Title (Any kind of juridical act or law

b. If the easement is NEGATIVE :
sufficient to create the encumbrance i.e. :
contract, donation, testamentary succession.)
 The period is counted from the date
 Prescription (10 years whether in of NOTARIAL PROHIBITION made upon the

servient estate.
good faith or in bad faith). Note : see Art.
1115 - general rules on prescription are not
applicable in cases of prescription provided for
Page | 47
Example: “A” and “B” are neighbors. On his

building's wall, “A” opened a window beneath
the ceiling joist to admit light, in 1978. Even
after ten years (1988), “B” may still obstruct  To make on the servient estate all
the light by constructing on his own lot a works necessary for the use and preservation of
building higher than “A's” unless “A” makes a the servitude, BUT :
notarial prohibition prohibiting “B” from
making the obstruction.
1. This must be at his own expense;
QUESTION : If in 1984, “A” makes a

prohibition, may “B” still make the
2. He must NOTIFY the servient
obstruction?
owner;
Answer : Yes, because , it is only in 1994 (ten

3. Select convenient time and manner;
years after the notarial prohibition) when “A”
may be said to have acquired the negative
easement of light and view. After 1994, “B”
may no longer obstruct. 4. He must not alter the easement nor
render it more burdensome.
Art. 624.
Apparent Sign of Easement  To ask for a MANDATORY

INJUNCTION to prevent impairment or
obstruction in the exercise of the easement as
when the owner of the servient estate obstructs
The existence of an apparent sign of
the right of way, building a wall or fence (see
easement between two estates, established
Resolme vs Lazo, 27 Phil 416);
or maintained by the owner or both, shall be
considered, should either of them be
alienated, as a title in order that the easement

may continue actively or passively, unless at
the time the ownership of the two estates is To RENOUNCE totally (for an
divided, the contrary should be provided in the easement is indivisible) if he desires exemption
title of the conveyance of either of them, or from the contribution to expenses (Art. 628);
the sign aforesaid should be removed before
the execution of the deed . This provision shall OBLIGATIONS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
also apply in case of the division of a thing
owned in common by two or more persons.
a. He cannot alter the easement
NOTE : Article refers not to an existing sign (Art. 627);

but a sign of an existing easement;
b. He cannot make it more

It is the servitude between the two tenements
burdensome (Art. 627);
which must exist not the sign.
RIGHTS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
 Thus he cannot use the easement
 To exercise the easement and all

except for movable originally contemplated;
necessary rights for its use including accessory

easement (Art. 625);
Page | 48
 In the easement of right of way, he  He must contribute to the expenses

cannot increase the agreed width of the path, in case he uses the easement, unless there is a
nor deposit soil or materials outside the contrary stipulation. (Art. 628, par. 2);
boundaries agreed upon (for the acts would be
increasing the burden). But he may allow
others to use the path (this really does not
increase the burden) except if the contrary has
been stipulated. (see : Valderama vs North
 In case of impairment, to restore
Negros Sugar Co., 48 Phili 492) conditions to the status quo at his expense plus
damages. (In case of obstruction, as when he
fences the original right of way, and offers an
inconvenient substitute way, which is farther
 If there be several dominant estates

and requires turning at a sharp angle, he may
be restrained by injunction.) See; Resolme vs
each must contribute to necessary repairs and Lazo, 27 Phil. 416);
expenses in proportion to the benefits received
by each estate (and not in proportion to the
value of each estate). In the absence of proof,
the benefits are presumed to be equal.
 To pay for the expenses incurred for
RIGHTS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE the change of location or from of the easement
(in the proper case). See; Art. 629, par. 2
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS
 To retain ownership and possession

of the portion of his land affected by the
Art. 631. Easements are extinguished:
easement (Art. 630) even if indemnity for the
right is given (as in the case of easement of
right of way) (Art. 649), unless the contrary has
been stipulated; 1. By MERGER:
MERGER:
 To make use of the easement,  The merger must be absolute

unless deprived by stipulation provided that the (without any condition), complete (not partial)
exercise of the easement is not adversely and not temporary. Thus, if the owner of the
affected (Art. 630), and provided further that he servient buys the whole portion affected, the
contributes to the expenses in proportion to the merger is complete, and the easement is
benefits received, unless there is a contrary extinguished. But if the portion bought is not
stipulation (Art. 628, par. 2); the portion affected, the easement naturally
remains.
 To change the location of a very Examples:
inconvenient easement provided that an equally

convenient substitute is made, without injury to
the dominant estate. (Art. 629, part. 2) Temporary merger :
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
Q: The dominant owner, sold a retro
 He cannot impair the use of the

his estate to B, the servient owner.
easement extinguished?
Is the
easement (Art. 629, par. 1)
A: No, it is only suspended for the merger is
Page | 49
only temporary. It is revived when the

property is redeemed.
3. By IMPOSSIBILITY OF USE or BAD CONDITION
of the tenement :
Conditional merger:
The dominant estate was donated to the

 The impossibility of using the
servient estate, but it was stipulated that if the easement, which arises from the condition of
servient owner later marries X, the property the tenements, only suspends the servitude,
reverts to the dominant owner. Pending the until such time when it can be used again. An
resolutory condition, the merger is considered example of this would be the flooding of the
temporary, and the easement is merely servient tenement over which a right of way
suspended. When the servient owner marries exists. Unless, extinguishment is caused by the
X, the easement is revived. If no marriage necessary period for non-user.
takes place (as when X dies ) the easement
really is extinguished.
4. By EXPIRATION of the term or
FULFILLMENT of the condition :

2. By NON-USER for 10 years :
 Non-user refers to an easement that

 Example: An easement was agreed
upon to last till the owner of the dominant
has once been used because one cannot
estate becomes a lawyer. When the condition is
discontinue using what one never used.
fulfilled the easement is extinguished.
 Non-user means voluntary

5. WAIVER or RENUNCIATION of the
abstention and not due to fortuitous event,
because the basis of this cause is presumptive
dominant estate:
renunciation.
Note:
 As a general rule, the renunciation
must be express, clear and specific (otherwise it
may be confused with none-user). However, it
From what time to compute?
may be tacit for as long as there are acts which
clearly reveal it beyond doubt.
a. Discontinuous - (like right of

6. REDEMPTION agreed upon :
way) from the time it ceased to
be used.
used.
b. Continuous - (like aqueduct) from the day on

 This is voluntary redemption,
existing because of an stipulation. Stipulations
which an act contrary to the same took place.
place. may provide conditions under which the
Thus the erection of works incompatible with easement would be extinguished.
the exercise of the easement or totally
obstructing the servitude, agreed to by the
owner of the dominant estate, amounts to a
tacit renunciation and extinguishes the 7. OTHER causes :
servitude. (see Ongsiako vs Ongsiako, 3-30-
57)
a. Expropriation of the servient estate;
Page | 50
b. Annulment, recession or cancellation of the title - Easement for the construction of a stop lock
that constituted the easement; or
sluice gate.
c. Abandonment of the servient estate;
2. Right of way;
d. Resolution of the right of the granter to create 3. Party wall;

the easement (as when there is redemption of
the property sold a retro because of the 4. Light and view;
exercise of the right of conventional
5. Drainage;
redemption);
6. Intermediate distance;
LEGAL EASEMENTS
7. Easement against nuisance;
8. Lateral and subjacent support.

Art. 634. Easements imposed by law have for
their object either public use or the interest of EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
private persons.
Art. 649. Easement of right of way.

Legal easements - those imposed by law and
which have for their object either:
Definition - the easement or privilege by which

one person or a particular class of persons is
a. Public use; allowed to pass over another's land , usually
through one particular path or line. The term
- governed by special laws (i.e. Law on Waters;
right of way, may either refer to the easement
Irrigation Law; Water Code)
itself or the strip of land over which passage
can be done.
b. The interest of private persons.
- governed by the provisions of the Civil Code; Requisites:

agreement between the parties; general or
local laws.
 The property is surrounded by the

Different kinds of legal easements : estates of others;
1. Easement relating to waters;

 There is no adequate outlet to a
public highway. (If outlet is thru the water, like
a river or sea, under Spanish law, the easement
cannot be demanded for there exists an
- Natural drainage of lands (Art. 637)
adequate outlet; it is believed that in Philippines,
- Natural drainage of buildings (Arit. 674) a distinction must be made, depending on
danger, convenience and cost.);
- Easement on riparian banks for navigation;
floatage and salvage (Art. 638)
- Easement of a dam (Arts. 639, 647)  There must be payment of proper

indemnity, (but later on, the amount may be
- Easement for drawing water or for watering
refunded when easement ends, see: Art. 655);
animals (Arts. 640-641)
- Easement of aqueduct (Arts. 643-646)
Page | 51
Art. 694 provides: A nuisance is any act,

 It must be established at a point omission, establishment, condition of property,
or anything else which:
least prejudicial to the servient estate. (This is
generally but not necessarily the shortest
distance);
1. Injures or endangers the health or safety
of the others.
 The isolation must not be due to the

Ex: House in danger of falling;
proprietor's own acts (as when he has built
enclosing walls, see : Art. 649);
Explosive factory in a
residential area.
 Demandable only by the owner or

2. Annoys or offends the senses.
one with a real right like a usufructuary. (The
lessee should ask the lessor to demand the
easement from adjoining estates.)
Ex: Too much noise or horn
blowing;
Note : The onus or the burden of proof is
upon the owner of the dominant estate to A chimney which renders a
show the specific averments in his complaint
the existence of the requisites or preconditions house uninhabitable due to
enumerated.
excessive smoke;
QUESTION : Can there be judicial easement?
3. Shocks, defies or disregards

In La Vista Association vs CA, CA, 278 SCRA
498, when the court says that an easement decency or morality.
exists, it is not creating one. For even an
injunction cannot be used to create one as
there is no such thing as judicial easement.
The court merely declares the existence of an
easement created by the parties. Note:
NUISANCE
The standard of morality changes. So that

what was immoral 20 years ago may not be
Why is nuisance a modification of immoral today. The third instance then
ownership? depends on time, place and standard of
morality of countries and people.
Because if one’s property becomes a

nuisance, he can be deprived of its enjoyment Ex : Public exhibition of a naked person;
and even be deprived of its ownership. So, if
a house is about to collapse and may cause Strip-teasing;
injury to others, the owner can be compelled
Public display of nude posters.
to demolish the house.
4. Obstructs or interferes with the free

NUISANCE, defined :
passage of any public highway or
streets, or any body of water.
Page | 52
only under certain circumstances or conditions.
Ex: houses erected on public streets.
3. Attractive nuisance – This is any

contrivance which is very attractive to
children but very dangerous to them.
5. Hinders or impairs the use of REMINDER :
property.
Ex: Illegal constructions on another’s land.

 An attractive nuisance is not illegal.
It may be legal or legitimate thing but because
of its nature, it can easily injure children that is
why it is called attractive nuisance. Example:
What are the different kinds of nuisance?
firearms.
1. Public or private nuisance (Art. 695):
 If one is an owner of an attractive

nuisance, he is required to exercise the highest
 Public nuisance – the doing of or

degree of diligence to prevent it from being
played by children.
the failure to do something that
injuriously affects safety, health or morals Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandan
of the public, or works some substantial 91 Phil. 488
annoyance, inconvenience or injury to the
public.
Facts:
Facts: A certain ice-plant factory maintained
two big tanks full of water in a place where
- it affects a community or children pass by. A boy 8 years of age passed
neighborhood or any considerable by and entered the premises of the factory
number of person although the and took a bath in one of the tanks. While
extent of the annoyance, danger swimming, the boy drowned and died. The
or damage upon individuals may parents of the boy filed an action for damages
be unequal. against the factory alleging that the tank full
of water was an attractive nuisance and yet
the factory did not provide any precaution to
avoid injury.
 Private nuisance – One which

violates only private rights and produces The following issues were raised:
damage to but one or few persons and cannot
be said to be public.
1. Whether or not water can be considered an

attractive nuisance.
2. Nuisance per se or nuisance per accidens:
accidens:
The SC held that water in any form
 Nuisance per se – a nuisance at all

is not an attractive nuisance. Nature in
itself has created streams, lakes, and pools
times and under all circumstances or conditions. which attract children. Lurking in their
waters is always the danger of drowning.
 Nuisance per accidens - a nuisance

Against this danger, children are to know
the danger.
Page | 53
May an action for abatement of a

nuisance prescribe?
2. Whether on not the tank full of water is an
attractive nuisance?
NO,
NO, an action for abatement of a nuisance is
one which is imprescriptible. A nuisance can
It is neither an attractive nuisance. be abated anytime.
Any imitation of nature, like a swimming
pool, is not an attractive nuisance. So, if
the owner of a private property creates
an artificial pool on his own property, Art. 698: Lapse of time cannot be legalize any
merely duplicating the work of nature nuisance whether public or private.
without adding any new danger, he is not
liable.
Art. 1143, 2nd par, an action to abate a
public or private nuisance is not
Who can be liable for damages for the
extinguished by prescription:
nuisance cause?
What are the remedies against a nuisance?
The owner or possessor who originally

caused the nuisance and the subsequent It depends on whether it is a public or private
owner or possessor of the property are jointly nuisance.
and severally liable. (Art. 696: Every
successive owner or possessor of property
who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
- If it is a PUBLIC NUISANCE, there are 3 possible
that property started by a former owner or
remedies:
possessor is liable therefore in the same
manner as the one who created it.
a. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION under

Who are liable? the Penal Code or any local
ordiance;
Note: This remedy is instituted by

In general : public officers (ordinarily the
mayor);
a. One who creates;
b. All who participates;

b. CIVIL ACTION;
ACTION;
c. One who adopts;
d. One who continues a previously
•
existing nuisance;
EXTRA-JUDICIAL
e. One who refuses to abate
ABATEMENT (abatement, without
nuisance.
judicial proceedings. (Art. 699);
If a property which has already caused

Note:
Note: Remedy (b) and (c) above may be
nuisance is removed, is it a defense?
brought by any private individual if the
nuisance is specially injurious to himself.
Art. 697: NO, the abatement of a nuisance

does not preclude the right of any person
- If it is a PRIVATE NUISANCE,
NUISANCE, there are 2
injured to recover damages for its past
possible remedies:
existence.
Page | 54
•
Code, criminal prosecution can proceed.
Civil action; or
• Abatement, without judicial  If the nuisance to be abated is more

proceedings (Art. 705)
than P3,000.00 it cannot be abated without
judicial proceedings. It can be abated only
through a criminal or civil action in court as the
QUESTION : What are the requisites for the case may be.
abatement of nuisance, whether public or
private, without judicial proceedings? (Art. When may a private person or a public officer
703 and 704) extra judicially abating a
nuisance be liable for damages?
ANSWER :
Art. 707:
1. There must be showing that the nuisance is

1. If he causes unnecessary injury; or
specially injurious to the person seeking the
abatement of nuisance; (Art. 703)
2. If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the

courts to be not a real nuisance.
2. That demand be first made upon the owner or
possessor of the property to
abate the nuisance; Cases:
3. That such demand has been rejected or ignored; 1. PP vs de Guzman, et. Al., 90 Phil. 132
2. Espiritu vs Municipal Council, 102 Phil 867

4. That the abatement must be approved by the City 3. Iloilo Cold Storage vs. Mun. Council, 24 Phil. 471
Engineer in Manila and other chartered
cities, and in the provinces, by the 4. Canlas vs. de Aquino, 2 SCRA 814
Provincial Health Officer and executed
with the assistance of or attended by a 5. San Rafael vs City of Manila, 46 SCRA 40
member of the local police force;
6. Velasco vs. Manila Electric, 40 SCRA 342
7. Ramcar vs Millar, 6 SCRA 517

5. That the abatement must be done in such a way
DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING
that it does not breach public peace, or
OWNERSHIP
do unnecessary injury;
Modes of acquiring ownership :

6. That the value of the thing to be abated
does not exceed P3,000.
a. Original mode : (Ownership is acquired for the

first time.)
Note :
 Criminal prosecution is not

• Occupation; (hunting,
fishing, hidden treasure)
mentioned. However, if a crime has been
committed as defined in the Revised Penal
Page | 55
•
Occupation is the acquisition of ownership
Intellectual Creation; by SEIZING corporeal things that have no
(books, copy rights, patents, owner, made with the intention of acquiring
letters) them, and accomplished according to legal
rules.
b. Derivative mode : (There is merely a transfer of

ownership; somebody else was the owner Occupation distinguished from possession :
before.)
3. Succession;  Occupation can take place only

with respect to property without an owner;
4. Donation;
while possession can refer to all kinds of
property whether with or without an ownership.
5. Prescription; (Art. 1106)
6. Law; (Arts. 158, 445, 461, 465, 466,
681, 1434, 1456 – NCC)

 Occupation, in itself when proper
confers ownership; but possession does not by
itself give rise to ownership.
7. Tradition (meaning : legal delivery
actual/constructive) as a
Requisites for occupation :
consequence of certain contracts
(i.e. : sale, barter, assignment,
simple loan or mutuum)

 There must be a seizure of
apprehension (note: the material holding is not
required as long as there is right of disposition);
Mode - the process of acquiring or
transferring ownership.
Title - that which is not ordinarily sufficient to  The property seized must be
convey ownership, but which gives a juridical corporeal (personal) property;
justification for a mode; that is, it provides the
cause for the acquisition of ownership.
Example :
 The property seized must be
susceptible of appropriation (either unowned or
abandoned property);
If “A” sells to “B” a specific car for a specific

amount, the sale is the title;
title; by virtue of such
title, “A” should now deliver the property to
“B”. It is the delivery or tradition that makes
 There must be intent to
“B” the owner; it is the tradition that is the appropriate;

mode.
mode.
OCCUPATION
 The requisites or conditions of the

law must be complied with (i.e. : good faith;
Art. 713.
proper title; legal period of time).
Page | 56
Art. 714. The ownership of a piece of land Ownership before publication – exclusive;
cannot be acquired by occupation.
Ownership after publication – no more
exclusive right except when work is
copyrighted.
Reasons :
Note : Mere circulation among close friends

and associates however, is not considered
Because a land that is not shown to publication.
belong to anyone is presumed to be a public

land;
Art. 723.
- Occupation as a mode of acquiring

Letters and other communications in writing
ownership refers to movables are owned by the person to whom they are
addressed and delivered, but they cannot be
which are either considered as res published or disseminated without the consent
of the writer or his heirs. However the court
nullius or res derelicta.
may authorize their publication or
INTELLECTUAL CREATION dissemination if the public good or the interest
of justice so requires.
Intellectual Creation is the product of mental

labor embodied in writing or some other Rules :
material form.
Art. 721. By intellectual creation, the following  The physical or material object is
persons acquire ownership : owned by the person to whom it has been
sent.


The author with regard to his
literary, dramatic, historical, legal, The thoughts, ideas and form of
philosophical, scientific or other work. expression contained in the letter belong to
the sender or author of the letter.
 The composer, as to his musical

composition.
 The recipient cannot publish or

disseminate the letter, unless:
 The painter, sculptor, or other artist,

with respect to the product of his art.
a. The writer or the writer’s heirs consent;
 The scientist or technologist or any

b. The public good or the interest of justice
so requires as when the:
other person with regard to his discovery or
invention.
- The publication is necessary for the
Art 722. vindication of the character of the person to
whom the letter is addressed.
Page | 57
versions or extracts or arrangements or

adaptations thereof.
- The letter is produced as evidence in court, in the
course of the administration of justice, except
when the letter constitutes a privilege
communication and cannot be admitted in
evidence without the consent of the writer.  To exhibit, perform, represent,
produce or reproduce the copyright work.
COPYRIGHT
 To make any other use or

Nature of Copyright : disposition of the copyrighted work.
 It is the exclusive right

Extent of the protection:
secured by law to an author or his

assigns to multiply and dispose of
copies of an intellectual or artistic
creation.  Concepts, theories, speculations,
abstracts of ideas however original they may
 It is an corporeal right to
be are not covered by the protection, because
there is no monopoly of theories and
print and publish, and exist speculations of an author. He may transfer
independent of the corporeal property these theories of ideas into intellectual
out of which it arises. products as books, letters or any form of
writing or illustration. These are exclusively
his.
The objectives of copyright are:
 But once caused to be published,

his exclusive right over the same causes, except
1. To encourage individuals to intellectual labor by when copyrighted. But the protection extends
assuring them of just rewards; only in so far as the form, language or style of
the production are concerned and not the
theories or the ideas themselves.
themselves. So that when
2. To secure the society of the largest benefit of their one copies the form, style and language, there is
products. infringement. It should be a copy of the original
but similarity alone is not sufficient, what is
important though is the copy is so near to the
original as to give to every person seeing it the
idea created by the original.
Right of a copyright owner : NOTE : Copyright does not extend to the

general concept or format of a dating game
show.
 To print, reprint, publish, copy,

Francisco G. Joaquin & BJ Productions, Inc.,
vs. Hon. Franklin Drilon, et. al.,
distribute, multiply, sell and make [G.R. No. 108946, January 28, 1999]
photographic illustrations of the copyrighted
work.
FACTS : This is a prosecution for violation of

PD 49 [Decree on Intellectual Property].

Joaquin and BJ Productions, Inc. holder of a
To make translations or other Certificate of Copyright of a TV dating game
show, “Rhoda and Me”, claimed that IXL
Page | 58
Productions & RPN Channel 9 infringed upon The copyright does not extend to the
their copyright by copying the format and style general concept or format of its dating game
thereof in its show, “It’s a Date”. show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the
subject of petitioner BJPI’s copyright, the
investigating prosecutor should have the
opportunity to compare the videotapes of the
HELD : The Court, speaking thru Justice
two shows.
Mendoza, ruled that the format of a show is
not copyrightable. The format or mechanics
of a television show is not included in the list
of protected works in P.D. No. 49. For this Mere description by words of the general
reason, the protection afforded by the law format of the two dating game shows in
cannot be extended to cover them. insufficient, the presentation of the master
videotape in evidence was indispensable to
the determination of the existence of probable
cause. As aptly observed by respondent
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is
Secretary of Justice: A television show
purely a statutory right. It is a new or
includes more than mere words can describe
independent right granted by the statute, and
because it involves a whole spectrum of
not simply a pre-existing right regulated by the
visuals and effects, video and audio, such that
statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights are
no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by
only such as the statute confers, and may be
merely describing the general copyright/format
obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the
of both dating game shows.
subjects and by the persons, and on terms
and conditions specified in the statute.
The requirement of originality.

originality.
P.D. No. 49, in enumerating what
subject are subject to copyright, refers
to finished works and not to concepts.
concepts. Originality does not mean novelty or
The copyright does not extend to an ingenuity, neither uniqueness or creativity. The
idea, procedure, process, system, law does not impose such requirements.
method of operation, concept, principle,
or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained,
Originality simply means that the work “owes
illustrated, or embodied in such work.
its origin to the author”.
author”.
Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES provides:
It means that the work is an independent
creation of the author. [see IPL by Ranhilio C.
Aquino, 2003 Ed.]
SECTION 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 172
and 173, no protection shall extend, under this
law, to any idea, procedure, system, method
or operation, concept, principle discovery or
mere data as such, even if they are Requisites:
expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied
in a work; news of the days and other
miscellaneous facts having the character of a. The work must originate from its author;
mere items of press information; or any official
text of a legislative, administrative or legal b. It must not be copied;
nature, as well as any official translation
thereof. c. It must involve some intellectual effort.
Cinematographic works and works produced

by a process analogous to cinematography or
NOTE: Copyright extends to adaptations of the
any process for making audio-visual
original work.
recordings;
However, in regard to works that are
Page | 59
adaptations, such as abridged works, digests,

anthologies –
NOTE:
NOTE:
What is protected by copyright is not merely

the visual appearance but the work as
embodied in a particular artistic medium,
example - an artfully blown glass rose versus
a transposition of the same rose but into
There will still be originality sufficient to
different artistic medium – a pencil sketch. Is
warrant copyright protection if the author,
there infringement? A skillfully and artistically
through his skill and effort, has contributed
blown glass rose is protected as a glass rose,
a distinguishable variation from the older
so that changing the medium is not infringing
works. In such a case, only those parts
the work. [see IPL by Ranhilio C. Aquino, 2003
which are new are protected by the new
Ed.]
copyright.
A copyright precludes trademark registration.
In United Feature Syndicate vs Munsingwear, GR

No. 76193, 11-9-89, the SC held that the
NOTE:
NOTE: exclusive rights vested by PD 49 in favor of a
copyright owner preclude the appropriation of
Garfield’s creator obviously has copyright to the same work as a trademark.
the comic strips that entertain us with the
antics of this strange mutant of a feline. But
does the copyright protection operate to bar
Would public display of a purchased
an entrepreneur from creating Garfield stuffed
copyrighted work, like paintings constitute
toys or sculptor from immortalizing the flabby
infringement?
cat in Italian marble?
Generally, there is no infringement. PD 49 and
RA 8293 are silent on this point. It is
patently absurd to deny a purchaser of a
work of art the right to display it publicly
A simpler judicial approach would be to and to impose upon him the obligation of
treat the toy or the piece of a sculpture as a concealing it from public view.
derivative work, and thus, to require
authority from Garfield’s creator before
allowing it legal status. [see IPL by Ranhilio
C. Aquino, 2003 Ed.]
Excepted from this privilege are works

produced by film, slide, television image or
THE INTERLEGO DOCTRINE analogous process. Otherwise, copyright
in them would mean nothing at all, for
“There must be in addition some element of public display, showing or exhibiting them
material alteration or embellishment which are precisely the source of economic
suffices to make the totality of the work an advantage for their creators, while painters
original work. and sculptors derive economic gain from
the sale of the work itself.
Even a relatively small alteration or addition
quantitatively may, if material, suffice to
convert that which is substantially copied from
an earlier work into an original work. Whether
it does so or not is a question of degree
However: [see IPL by Ranhilio C. Aquino, 2003 Ed.]
having regard to the quality rather than the
quantity of the addition. But copying per se, 1. A protected photograph cannot be copied by
however much skill or labor might be devoted drawing or by photographic reproduction;
to the process could not make an original
work.” 2. A choreographic work is infringed by a still photo
while dance routine is in progress;
3. A photograph of copyrighted jewelry infringes
Page | 60
copyright. [GR NO. L- 24295. September 30, 1971]
When is there infringement?

Substantial reproduction does not require
reproduction of the entire copyrighted work, or Whether or not a foreign
even a large portion thereof.
corporation, unlicensed and unregistered
If so much is taken that the value of the to do business in the Philippines has legal
original work is substantially diminished,
diminished, or the capacity to maintain a suit in the Philippine
labors of the original author are substantially Patent Office for cancellation of a
and to an injurious extent appropriated by registered trademark.
another,
another, that is sufficient in point of law to
constitute piracy.
A foreign corporation which has never
done business in the Philippine Islands
and which is unlicensed to do business
here, but widely and favorably known in
the Islands through the use of its products
bearing its corporate and trade name has a
legal right to maintain an action in the
Islands.
Islands.
It is not the copying, per se, that is
prohibited but the injurious effect it has on
the author of the copied work.
work. The unfair
appropriation of one’s research effort is The purpose of such a suit is to protect its
sufficient injury to sustain a claim. reputation, corporate name and goodwill
which has been established through the
(see : Habana vs Robles GR No. 131522 7-09-99) natural development of its trade for a long
period of years. The right to the use of the
corporate or trade name is a property right,
a right in rem,
rem, which it may assert and
protect in any of the courts of the world-
Remedies in case of infringement : even in jurisdictions where it does not
transact business- just the same as it may
protect its tangible property, real or
personal against trespass or conversion.
• Damages;
• Injunction;
ANG SI HENG AND SALUSTIANA DEE VS.

WELLINGTON DEPT. STOREINC.,
Effect of expiration : BENJAMIN CHUA, S.R. MENDING STORE
INC. MENDINUETO, AND FILEMON COSIO
(GR NO. L.4531, JAN. 10, 1953)
On the final expiration of the copyright term,
the whole work falls into the public
domain and becomes free and unrestricted.
TRADEMARKS  Are geographical indications

registrable?
 When does use of trade name

constitute unfair competition?
GENERAL GARMENTS CORPORATION VS.

THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS AND
PURITAN SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION
Page | 61
 1. The term “Wellington” is either a

geographical name or surname of a person.
Geographical names are regarded as common
 CRISANTA Y. GABRIEL vs. JOSE
property and it is a general rule that the same R.PEREZ and HONORABLE TIBURCIO
cannot be appropriated as the subject of an EVALLE as Director of Patents (GR No. L-
exclusive trademark or trade name. Even if 24075, January 31, 1974)
Wellington was a surname, it cannot also be
validly registered as trade name.
 Whether or not petitioner AS

EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR OF Respondent
became the rightful, owner of the trademark
 Therefore an action for violation of

“WONDER”.
trademark cannot be maintained because the

right to damages or injunction is granted only
to those entitled to the exclusive use of a
registered trademark or trade name. (Section
23, Republic Act No. 166)
 The exclusive distributor does not
acquire any proprietary interest in the
principal’s trademark. “In the absence of any
 2. On unfair competition, while

inequitable conduct on the part of the
manufacturer, an exclusive distributor, who
employs the trademark of the manufacturer,
there is a similarity between the trademark
or tradename “Wellington Company” and does not acquire proprietary interest in the
that of “Wellington Department Store,” no mark which will extinguish the rights of the
confusion or deception can possibly result manufacturer, and a registration of the
or arise from such similarity because the trademark by the distributor as such belongs
latter is a “department store”, while the to the manufacturer, provided the fiduciary
former does not purport to be so. relationship does not terminate before
Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the application for registration is filed.” (87 CJS
public cannot be deceived that the goods 258-259, citing cases.)
of the plaintiff originate from the
defendant’s store because the defendant’s
store does not sell clothing apparels
bearing the plaintiff’s mark “Wellington”.
PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC., vs. NG SAM
 Neither could such deception by

and the DIRECTOR OF PATENTS (GR No.
L-26676, July 30, 1982)
any possibility be produced because the
defendant’s store is situated at Escolta,
while plaintiff’s store or place of business CAMIA COOKING OIL VS CAMIA HAM
is located in another business district far
away from Escolta. The mere fact that two
or more customers of the plaintiffs thought
of the probable identity of the products
sold by one and the other is not sufficient
proof of the supposed confusion that the
 Whether or not registration of the
same mark under the same class for non-
public has been led into by the use of the competitive and unrelated goods may be
name adopted by the defendants. No allowed.
evidence has been submitted that
customers of the plaintiffs-appellants had
actually been misled into purchasing
defendant’s articles and merchandise.
 RULING:
Page | 62
 The parties are non-competitive

Esso Standard Eastern Inc., vs United Cigarette
and their products so unrelated that the Corp. G.R. No. L-29971, Aug. 31, 1982
sue of identical trademarks is not likely to
give rise to confusion, much less cause
damage to petitioner.
ESSO PETROLEUM vs ESSO CIGARETTE
 While ham and some of the

 Whether or not the protection
afforded by a trademark registration extends
products of petitioner are classified under to all goods.
Class 47 (Foods and Ingredients of Food),
this alone cannot serve as the decisive
factor in the resolution of whether or not
The goods on which petitioner uses the
they are related goods. Emphasis should
trademark ESSO, petroleum products, and the
be on the similarity of the products
product of respondent, cigarettes, are non-
involved and not on the arbitrary
competing. Trademark infringement depends
classification or general description of
on whether or not the goods of the parties are
their properties or characteristics. The
so related that the public may be, or is
particular goods of the parties are so
actually, deceived and misled that they came
unrelated that consumers would not in any
from the same manufacturer. In cases of
probability mistake one as the source or
related goods, confusion of business could
origin of the product of the other.
arise out of the use of similar marks, in the
case of non-related goods, it could not.
 “Ham” is not a daily food fare for

the average consumer. One purchasing
ham would exercise a more cautious
inspection of what he buys on account of
its price. In addition, the goods of
 In the case at bar, the goods are
obviously different from each other – with
petitioners are basically derived from “absolutely no iota of similitude”. They are so
vegetable oil and animal fats, while the foreign that it is unlikely that purchasers would
product of respondent is processed from think that petitioner is the manufacturer of
pig’s legs. A consumer would not respondent’s goods. One of the factors that
reasonably assume that petitioner has so show that the goods involved are non-
diversified its business to include the competitive and non-related is the fact that
product of respondent. respondent’s goods are beyond Petitioner’s
“zone of potential or natural and logical
expansion”. Moreover, respondent’s goods are
distributed through different channels of trade.
 The term “ CAMIA” is descriptive of

a whole genus of garden plants with fragrant
white flowers. Some people call the “CAMIA” SIMILARITY TEST : To determine whether a
the “white ginger plant” because of its trademark has been infringed, the mark as a
tuberous roots, while children refer to it as the whole must be considered and not as
butterfly flower because of its shape. Being a dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is
generic and common term, its appropriation as attributable to the marks as a totality, not
a trademark, albeit in a fanciful manner in that usually to any part of it [Del Monte Corporation
it bears no relation to the product it identifies, vs Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410]
is valid. However, the degree of exclusiveness
accorded to each user is closely restricted.
Page | 63
DISSIMILARITY TEST [or the so-called

“visible difference test”] : In the case of Asia
Brewery vs Court of Appeals (224 SCRA 437), 7) Finally, there is a substantial price
the SC applied the “dissimilarity test” or difference between BEER PALE PILSEN
“visible difference test” in determining whether (currently at P4.25 per bottle) and SAN
or not there exists unfair competition. In this MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (currently at P7.00 per
case, while the Supreme Court did not bottle). One who pays only P4.25 for a bottle
abandon the “similarity test”, it nevertheless, of beer cannot expect to receive San Miguel
qualified the same when it applied the “visible Pale Pilsen from the storekeeper or
difference test” especially so when the bartender.”
dissimilarities abound. It said : “Besides the
dissimilarity in their names, the following other
dissimilarities in the trade dress or appearance
of the competing brands abound:
 In the Asia Brewery case, the
Supreme Court deviating from the Del
Monte ruling, further said : “The ruling may
1) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle has not apply to all kinds of products. In resolving
a slender tapered neck. The BEER PALE cases of infringement and unfair competition,
PILSEN bottle has a fat, bulging neck; the courts should take into consideration
several factors which would affect its
conclusion, to wit : the age, training and
2) The words “pale pilsen” on SMC’s label are education of the usual purchaser, the nature
printed in bold and laced letters along a and cost of the article, whether the article is
diagonal band, whereas the words “pale bought for immediate consumption and also
pilsen” on ABI’s bottle are half the size and the conditions under which it is usually
printed in slender block letters on a straight purchased.
horizontal band;
The Del Monte case involved catsup, a

common household item which is bought off
the store shelves by housewives and house
3) The names of the manufacturers are help who, if they are illiterate and cannot
prominently printed on their respective bottles. identify the product by name or brand, would
SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is “Bottled by very likely identify the product by mere
San Miguel Brewery Philippines,”whereas recollection of its appearance.
BEER PALE PILSEN is “Especially brewed
and bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated,
Philippines;
Since the competitor, Sunshine Sauce Mfg.

4) On the back of ABI’s bottle is printed in big, Industries, not only used recycled Del Monte
bold letters, under a row of flower buds and bottles for its catsup (despite the warning
leaves, its copyrighted slogan : BEER NA embossed on the bottles : “Del Monte
BEER!” Whereas SMC’s bottle carries no Corporation. Not to be refilled.”) but also used
slogan; labels which were a “colorable imitation” of
Del Monte’s label, we held that there was
infringement of Del Monte’s trademark and
unfair competition by Sunshine. Our ruling in
5) The back of the SAN MIGUEL PALE Del Monte would not apply to beer which is not
PILSEN bottle carries the SMC logo, usually picked up from a store shelf by
whereas the BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has ordered by brand by the beer drinker himself
no logo; from the storekeeper or waiter in a pub or
restaurant.”
6) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle

cap is stamped with a coat of arms and the
words “San Miguel Brewery Philippines”
encircling the same. The BEER PALE
 In Lim Hoa vs Director of Patents
PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with the name (100 Phil. 214, in rel. to Etepha vs Director, 16
“BEER” in the center, surrounded with the SCRA 495), the Supreme Court was more telling
words “Asia Brewery Incorporated Philippines; : “The court differentiated food seasoning
product, a kitchen article of daily consumption,
Page | 64
from commodities or articles of relatively great

value, such as radio and television sets, air-
conditioning units, machinery, etc., where the
prospective buyer generally the head of a family
or a businessman, before making the purchase,
 In this regard, the class of
purchasers who buy the particular kind of
reads the pamphlets and all literature available, article manufactured must be considered in
describing the article he is planning to buy and determining the question of probable
perhaps even makes comparisons with similar deception. This includes incautious, unwary or
articles in the market. ignorant purchasers, but not purchasers who
make no examination. This is because unfair
competition is a case-to-case basis. The fact
He is not likely to be deceived by similarity in that careful buyers, who scrutinize closely, are
the trademarks because he makes a more or not deceived merely shows that the injury is
less study of the same and may even consult less in degree but not necessarily mean there
his friends about the relative merit and is no injury. The same is true with careless
performance of the article or machinery, as purchasers who are deceived simply by the
compared to others also for sale. use of ordinary and common forms of putting
up goods do not necessarily show unfair
competition.
 UNFAIR COMPETITION : Alhambra

Cigar vs Mojica March 21, 1914
TRIPS
Agreement on the Trade-related aspects of
 Unfair competition consists in

Intellectual Property Rights
What is included in the term: “Intellectual Property

passing off or attempting to pass off upon
Rights”? ( Sec. 4 RA 8293)
the public the goods or business of one
person and for the goods or business of
another. It consists essentially in the
conduct of a trade or business in such a
manner that there is either an express or
implied representation to that effect. Unfair
− Copyright and related rights;
competition, as thus defined, is a legal
−
wrong for which the courts afford a
remedy. It is a tort and a fraud. The basic Trademarks and Service Marks;
principle is that no one has a right to dress
up his goods or otherwise represent them
in such a manner as to deceive an
intending purchaser and induce him to − Geographic Indications;( One which
believe he is buying the goods of another. identifies a good as originating in a territory of
Actual or probable deception and a trips member).
confusion on the part of customers by
reason of defendant’s practices must
always appear to be considered as an act
of unfair competition.
− Industrial Designs;
(Any composition of lines or colors or any

 In addition to that, it is not three dimensional form, whether of not
associated with lines or colors and gives a
necessary to show that any person has been special appearance to and can serve as
actually deceived by defendant’s conduct and pattern for an industrial product or handicraft;
lead to purchase his goods in the belief that
they are the goods of plaintiff, it is sufficient to
show that such deception will be natural and
probable result of defendant’s acts. Either
− Patents;
actual or probable deception and confusion
must be shown, for if there is no probability of
deception there is no unfair competition.
Page | 65
−
That its jurisdiction is limited to complaints
where the total damages claimed are less than
Layout – designs (Topographies) of
P200, 000.00 : Provided further, that availment
Integrated Circuits; of the provisional remedies may be granted in
accordance with the Rules of Court];
− Protection of undisclosed
information [i.e. trade secrets, formula]
− Documentation, Information and

Technology Transfer Bureau ; [Functions :
Provide technical, advisory and other services
Intellectual Property Office relating to the licensing and promotion of
technology, and carry out an efficient and
Functions: effective program for technology transfer;
register technology transfer arrangement; and
−
settle disputes involving technology transfer
To grant patents for inventions; payments];
− To register marks, geographic

− The Management Information
System and EDP Bureau;
indication, integrated circuits; technology
transfer arrangements;
− The Administrative, Financial and
− To administratively adjudicate
Personnel Service Bureau;
contested proceedings affecting IPR;
What is patent?
Structure:
− A grant made by the government to
an inventor, conveying and securing to him the
The IPO is headed by a director general exclusive right to make use of his invention for
a given period.
There are 6 bureaus, each headed by a director
What are patentable inventions?
−
−
Bureau of Patents; (Functions:
search and examination of patent applications Any technical solution to a problem
and the grant of patents); in any field of human activity which is new,
involves an inventive step and is industrially
− Bureau of Trademarks: (function:

applicable. It may be, or may relate to: a
product; or process; or an improvement of any
search and examination of applications for the of the foregoing. (Sec. 21)
registration of marks of ownership and the
i.e. : A new and useful machine;
issuance of the certificate of registration);
A manufactured product or
substance; or
− Bureau of Legal Affairs [Functions:

An improvement of any of the
foregoing.
a) hear and decide opposition to the
application for registration of marks;
When shall an invention be considered as “new”?
cancellation of trademarks, patents, industrial
designs; and petitions for compulsory licensing
of patents; b) exercise original jurisdiction in
administrative complaints for violation of laws
involving intellectual property rights: Provided,
Page | 66
−
micro-organisms and non-biological and
micro-biological processes;
When it is novel;
novel; (Sec 23)
− When it does not form part of a prior

− Aesthetic creations; or
art.
art.
Prior art shall consist of : − Anything contrary to public order or

morality.
 Everything which has been made Who has a RIGHT to a patent?

available to the public anywhere in the world,
before the filing date of the application
claiming invention.
……… which means that the “invention” is : − The right to a patent belongs to the
inventor, his heirs or assigns;
Already known;
− When two (2) or more persons have
Publicly used; or jointly made an invention, the right to a patent
shall belong to them jointly. (co-ownership)
Already patented or described;
When is an invention considered useful?

− If two or more persons have made
the invention separately and independently of
each other, the right to the patent shall belong
to the person who filed an application for such
invention;
− When it is capable performing some

beneficial function.
− Where two or more applications are

Non-Patentable Inventions : filed for the same inventions, to the applicant
who has the earliest filing date or the earliest
−
priority date.
Discoveries, scientific theories and
mathematical methods;
− The person who commissions the
−
work shall own the patent, unless otherwise
Schemes, rules and methods of provided in the contract;
performing mental acts, playing games or

doing business, and programs for computer;
− In the case the employee made the
− Methods for treatment of the human

invention in the course of his employment contract,
the patent shall belong to :
or animal body by surgery or therapy and
diagnostic methods practiced on human or
animal body;  The employee, if the inventive
activity is not a part of his regular duties even
if the employee uses the time, facilities and
materials of the employer;
− Plant varieties or animal breeds or

 The employer, if the invention is the
essentially biological process for the
production of plants and animals except: result of the performance of his regularly
Page | 67
−
assigned duties, unless there is an agreement
to the contrary
When they perform substantially the
same function (or mode or principle) in
substantially the same way to obtain the same
RIGHT OF PRIORITY result, even if they differ in name, form, shape
or dimensions. (Doctrine of equivalents)
− An application for patent filed by any NO INFRINGEMENT:
person who has previously applied for the

same invention in another country, which by
−
treaty, convention, or law affords similar
privileges to Filipino citizens, shall be
When the original machine is
considered as filed as of the date of the filing
the foreign application:
application: improved by the use of different form or
combination although performing the same
Provided, That: functions.
−
a) The local application expressly claims priority;
When a single element in the
b) It is filed within 12 months from the date of copy of
the foreign application was filed; original device is left out in the new device.
c) A certified copy of the foreign application together

with an English translation is filed w/in 6
months from the date of filing in the
Philippines. − When the making or using of a
patented invention is not conducted for profit
and solely for the purpose of research or
Term of Patent: experiment or for instruction.
− 20 years from the filing date of the − Preparation of a medicine for

application. individual cases in a pharmacy or by a medical
professional in accordance with a medical
Right of Patentee: prescription.
− A patentee shall have the exclusive

right to make; use and sell the patented
−
machine, article or product, and to use the
patented process for the purpose of industry When used in any foreign ship or
or commerce, thru-out the Philippines for the
vessel, aircraft or land vehicle for its exclusive
duration of the patent.
needs (not for purposes of manufacture or
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT: sale) entering the Philippines temporarily or
accidentally;
− A violation of the right which is

− Any prior user who in good faith was
secured to the inventor by the patent law (IPC)
constitutes an infringement. It consists in the using the invention in his business or
making, using, selling of the patented process enterprise prior to the filing or priority date of
or instrumentality by any person without the application on which a patent is granted.
authorization on the part of the patentee.
Test:
− Use by the government or third persons
In order to constitute infringement there must be authorized by the government when :
SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY (not exact identity)
between the two devices. a. Required by public interest. (i.e.:
They are identical: national security; nutrition; health; development of

other sectors); or
Page | 68
-
b) It is determined by an administrative or judicial
body that the exploitation by the owner of
The reduction in the patrimony of
the patent is anti-competitive.
the donor;
- The increase in the patrimony of the donee;

Note:
− The burden of proof to show

- The intent to do an act of liberality.
infringement of a patent is on the party who

asserts such infringements.
Note:
DEFENSES:
When a person gets a life insurance and
−
names a third person as his beneficiary, and
The patent is invalid; the insurance becomes payable by the death
of the insured, there is a donation in favor of
the beneficiary – not in the sum received by
− The invention is not new and

him from the insurer, but in the total amount of
premiums that have been paid by the insured.
This is the only amount that leaves the
patentable;
patrimony.
− The patent does not disclose the

invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
complete for it to be carried out by person
skilled in the art;
 If the amount of premiums,
however, exceeds the insurance, there is
donation only to have extent of the insurance.
− The patent is contrary to public

This is the only amount that is added to the
patrimony of the donee.
order or morality.
Classification of donations:
REMEDIES:
− Civil action for damages plus

- Simple – the cause is pure liberality (no strings
attached);
injunction.
- Remuneratory (to reward past services which do

DONATIONS
not constitute demandable debt.)
Art. 725. Donation is :

Ex: A donation to one who saved the donor’s
life.
- An act of liberality whereby a person disposes

gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of
Note: The phrase “they do not constitute a
another who accepts it.
demandable debt” (Art. 726) means that the
service which was rendered did not produce
an obligation demandable against the donor;
Essential requisites : or if it had, such obligation has been
renounced in favor of the donor.
Example :
Page | 69
A agreed to review B for the bar

 What is voided here is the
examinations for a fee of P10,000.00. Later, impossible condition and not the donation itself.
B passes the bar examination, and as a
gratitude gives A a parcel of land worth
P20,000.00. The remuneratory donation here
is only with respect to the excess of
P10,000.00 because, the services of A
 Facts : Fernando and Placido Manalo
“donated” a parcel of land to their niece,
constitute a demandable debt, unless, A in the
Leoncia, on the condition that the latter would
meantime renounces his fees and in such case
shoulder the “funeral expenses” of the former
, there is donation to the extent of
when they die. The donation was done in a
P20,000.00.
private instrument. Is the donation valid?
- Conditional or Modal – when the donation  Held : Yes, the donation is valid because it
imposes upon the donee an obligation in is an onerous donation. It is governed by the
favor of the donor himself or a third law on contracts. A private instrument was
person or even the public. sufficient. [Manalo vs De Mesa 20 Phil. 496]
Example : DONATION INTER-VIVOS
A piece of land is donated to the Art. 730.

city in order that it may be converted into
a park or public market. Effect of the fulfillment of the suspensive
condition beyond the lifetime of the donor.
Form to be followed :
Example : “A” donates a piece of land to “B”
on the condition that “X”, “A’s” son becomes a
lawyer.
- In simple/remuneratory donations -
form of donations
The fulfillment of the condition even after the
- Onerous donations - contracts. death of the donor does not affect the nature
of the donation as inter vivos. The fulfillment
retroacts to the time of the donation.
Art. 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in
simple and remuneratory donations shall be
considered as not imposed. 731. When a person donates something,
subject to the resolutory condition of the
donor’s survival, there is donation inter-vivos.
Note :
Note : Fulfillment of a resolutory condition, its

effect.
 It is supposed to be simple (no
strings attached), why is there a need to have a
condition, much less, impossible? Example : “A” was about to undergo a delicate
operation. He donated to “B” a parcel of land
 If the condition is not void, then the

subject to the condition that if “A” survives the
operation, “B’s” ownership over the land
donation is not really simple, for it has a burden would terminate, and the same would revert
imposed upon the donee. to “A”. But if “A” dies, there is donation inter
vivos not mortis causa.
Page | 70
consent of the other. But with respect to

conjugal or community property, they cannot
WHEN IS DONATION PERFECTED ?
make donations without the consent of the
other, except : moderate donations for charity
or on occasion of family rejoicing or family
Art. 734. The donation is perfected from the distress,
distress, (see : Art. 98 & Art. 125 of the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance Family Code ); see also Arts. 113-115 of the
by the donee; Family Code.
Art. 746. Acceptance must be made during the May husbands and wives donate to each other?
lifetime of the donor and the donee.
Art. 87. Family Code – Every donation or grant

WHO MAY DONATE ? of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect,
between the spouses during the marriage
shall be void, except moderate gifts which the
Art. 735. All persons who may contract and spouses may give each other on the occasion
dispose of their property may make a of any family rejoicing.
rejoicing. The prohibition shall
donation. also apply to person living together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Art.737. The donor’s capacity shall be

Reason: To protect the creditors and the
determined as of the time of the making of
weaker spouse from the dominance of the
the donation.
donation.
other.
REMINDER :
What is moderate is relative. This may be
determined based on the financial status of
the family.
The phrase “as of the time of the making of
the donation” should really mean “as of the
time of the perfection of the donation”. So
Capacity of a minor :
that, a physically incapacitated person (i.e.
unemancipated minors or insane) may still
validly donate provided that at the time of his
knowledge of the acceptance by the donee, For purposes of marriage, a person may
the incapacity is not present. Although, it is contract marriage at the age of 18 years. But
submitted that the donation is voidable may he enter into a marriage settlement
following the law on contracts which are wherein he may dispose of his future property
suppletory to simple donation – as in vitiated in favor of his prospective spouse without the
consent. intervention of the parents?

Art. 78. (in relation to Art. 234 and 236 of the
The capacity of the donee is Family Code) which requires that the parents
determined at the time of the perfection of the are required to be made parties to the
donation (at the time he makes known to the marriage settlements was impliedly repealed
donor his acceptance of the donation). by RA 6809, wherein marriage settlements
may now be entered by the child personally
even without the intervention of the parents.
Capacity of the Husband or the Wife :
Read also : Donations by reason of marriage –

Arts. 82 – 87, Family Code.
Husbands or wives may donate their own
capital or paraphernal properties without the
Page | 71
WHAT MAY BE DONATED ?
- The acceptance must also be in a PUBLIC

DOCUMENT.
Art. 750. The donation may comprehend all
present property of the donor, or part thereof,
provided he reserves in full ownership or in
usufruct, sufficient means for the support of With respect to MOVABLE PROPERTY :
himself, and all of relatives who at the time of
the acceptance of the donation, are by law
entitled to be supported by the donor. Without The donation must be in writing.
such reservation, the donation shall be
reduced on petition of any person affected.
If the value of the thing is P5,000.00 or less :
REMINDER : - may be oral but simultaneous delivery of the thing

and the document representing the right
donated is required;
 The donation may comprehend all

- may be in writing;
present property, meaning that which the donor
can dispose of at the time of the donation but in In both instances (where the donation is
all instances, the donor cannot give more than either oral or written), the acceptance may be
what he can give by will (meaning, a person made orally (express or implied ) or in writing;
cannot receive more than what the giver can
give by virtue of a will). Otherwise, the donation
is considered inofficious.
SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION:
DISQUALIFICATION:
See : Arts. 739. and 740
 The sufficiency can be determined

by the court in accordance with prudence and
the exercise of reasonable discretion.
 Those made between persons who
are guilty of adultery or concubinage at the
time of the donation;
 Excessive or inofficious donation is

Notes :
not void but merely reducible.
- This refers to donations between paramours.
 Donations cannot comprehend

future property (Art. 751), because the donor - There is no necessity of proving the guilt in a
cannot give what he does not have, except in criminal proceedings, it is enough that the
cases of contractual succession and donations guilt may be proven by a preponderance of
by reason of marriage (see : Art. 84, Family evidence in a civil action for the declaration of
Code). nullity of the donation.
WHAT ARE THE FORMALITIES OF A
DONATION ?
- The commission of the adultery or

With respect to IMMOVABLE property :
(see : Art. 749) concubinage must be at the time of the donation
and not after.
- The donation must be in a PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
Page | 72
-
The following persons are disqualified :
When the purpose of the donation is
to initiate, continue, resume or compensate
-
the illicit relations between the paramours, the
donation is void. The priest who heard the confession
of the donor during his last illness, or
- But if the intention is to indemnify

the damaged caused to the other at the time
of separation, the donation is valid.
- The minister of the gospel who
extended spiritual aid to him during the
same period;
 Those made between persons found - The relatives of such priest or minister of the
guilty of the same offense, in consideration gospel within the 4th civil degree, the
thereof. church the order, chapter, community,
organization, or institution to which such
priest or minister belongs;
Note :
c. The guardian with respect to

donations made by the ward in his favor
- If a person agrees to kill another in

before the final accounts of the
guardianship have been approved, even if
consideration of a donation to be made in his the donor should die after the approval
favor, the donation is void. thereof; nevertheless any donation made
by the ward in favor of the guardian
- Here, since the consideration is

when the latter is his ascendant,
descendant, brother, sister, or spouse,
illegal, the donation, must necessarily be void; shall be valid;
- There must be a conviction.

conviction. - Any physician surgeon, nurse, health
officer, or druggist who took care of the
donor during his last illness;

 Those made to a public officer or his
spouse, descendants or ascendants by reason of
his office. - Individuals, associations and
corporations not permitted by law to
Note : receive donations.
- The purpose for the rule is to prevent bribery; Note : The incapacity to inherit by reason of
unworthiness provided in Art. 1032 is not
- The donation is void by reason of public policy. included within the scope of the above article.
Art. 740. Incapacity to succeed by will A donation made to a person who falls under
shall the provisions of said article would be valid,
because a testamentary provision made in
be applicable to donations inter-vivos.
favor of such person after the testator has
knowledge of the act of unworthiness would
constitute pardon under Art. 1033.
Page | 73
- If the donor should subsequently
On the other hand, if the donation has already adopt a minor child. ADOPTION
been made when the cause of unworthiness
occurs, the donation is revoked only by the
causes mentioned in Arts. 760, 764 and 765.
765. Note :
RULES IN CASES OF DOUBLE DONATIONS:

DONATIONS:
 When the revocation should take

effect :
 Apply the rule on double sales, Art.

1544, NCC;
The donation is revoked or reduced by the
happening of any of the events enumerated in
Art. 760. In other words, the revocation or
Movable property - the reduction takes place ipso jure.
ownership shall be transferred
to the donee who have first
taken possession thereof in
No action is necessary to revoke or reduce
good faith.
the donation which is already considered by
law as revoked. Court action is necessary
however, when the donee refuses to return
Immovable property – the ownership shall the property. In such case, the decision of the
belong to the donee who first recorded it in court will be merely declaratory of the
the registry of property. revocation – it will not be a revocatory act.
If there be no inscription, the ownership shall

pertain to the donee who in good faith was
the first in the possession. And in the absence
thereof, to the donee who presents the oldest  Birth, reappearance and adoption as
title, provided there is good faith. causes for the revocation or reduction. The
article seeks to protect the presumptive
legitimate or the expected legitime of the heir.
REVOCATION AND REDUCTION OF DONATIONS
Art. 760. Every donation inter-vivos made by a  The value of the estate to be
person having no children or descendants, considered is at the time of the birth,
legitimate or legitimated by subsequent reappearance or adoption.
marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or
reduced by the happening of any of these
events :
 The action to reduce must be

brought
- If the donor, after the donation, should have
legitimate or legitimated children, even within 4 years, see : Art. 763. This
though they be posthumous; BIRTH
action cannot be renounced.
- If the child of the donor whom the latter believed

to be dead when he made the donation,
should turn
REAPPEARANCE
out to be living;  The article applies only to donation
inter vivos and not to : a) donations propter
nuptias (which can be revoked only for causes
Page | 74
enumerated by law); b) onerous donations (for Notes:

these are really contracts); c) mortis causa (for
this is revocable for any or no cause at all).
ILLUSTRATION:
 Effect of non-fulfillment – the donor
has the choice of enforcing the condition by
action for specific performance. The donee
having bound himself to carry out the condition
“X” has no child. At the time he gave the imposed by accepting the donation, may be
donation of P10,000.00, he had P100,000.00. compelled with what has been stipulated.
Therefore after the donation, he had
P90,000.00 left. Later, he adopted a minor
child. At the same time he made the adoption
he had only P5,000.00 left. Should the
donation be reduced? If so, how much?
 A court action is necessary if the
donee refuses to return the property
Note : The value of the estate to be considered is

at Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at
the instance of the donor, by reason of
the time of birth, reappearance or ingratitude in the following cases :
adoption.
- If the donee should commit some offense

against the person, the honor, or the property
Donation = P10,000.00 of the donor or of his wife or children under
his parental authority;
Property left at the
time of adoption = P 5,000.00

Note:
-------------
P15,000.00
Legitime = P15,000.00 x ½ = P 7,500.00

 Offense does not mean a criminal
offense, it may also include non-criminal
offenses.
Since the value of the estate is only P5,000.00, the
donation must be reduced by P2,500.00.
See : Cruz vs CA, 140 SCRA 245

 No criminal conviction is necessary,
and proof of the offense by mere preponderance
of evidence in a suit for revocation is sufficient.
Art. 764.
A donation may also be revoked at the

- If the donee imputes to the
instance of the donor when the donee fails to
comply with any of the conditions which the donor any criminal offense,
offense, or any act
former imposed upon the latter. involving moral turpitude, even though he
should prove it, unless the crime of the act
has been committed against the donee
himself, his wife or children under his
Exception : When the condition is immoral, illegal or
authority.
impossible.
Page | 75
- If he unduly refuses him support when the

donee is legally or morally bound to give
-
support to the donor.
Net Estate + property left at the
time of death minus debts and charges
Notes : plus value of donations.
- There is legal or moral ground;
- The refusal to support must be “undue” or - The donation may be considered inofficious, only
“unjustified” in so far as it may affect the legitime of
the heirs;
- It is understood that the support given periodically
should not exceed the value of the thing
donated. The moment this amount is reached,
- Since the inofficiousness of the donation cannot be
the duty to support also ends.
determined till after the donor’s death, it
follows that in the meantime, the
donation is valid and ownership is
Art. 769. Prescriptive period for revocation by transmitted to the donee during the
reason of ingratitude shall be 1 year to be donor’s lifetime.
counted from the time the donor had
knowledge of the fact and it was possible for
him to bring the action.
Prescriptive period :
Art. 770. The action for revocation is not

The action to reduce or revoke may be
transmitted to the heirs of the donor.
brought within a period of 5 years from the
time of the donor’s death. See : Art. 1149,
NCC
Reason : Because the grounds for revocation
are purely personal to the donor.
Who may bring action to reduce?
Exceptions :
- Compulsory heirs of the donor;
- When the action was already instituted but the - Heirs and successors-in-interests of the compulsory
donor subsequently died; heirs.
END OF LECTURE
- When the donor is killed by the donee;
- The donor died without knowing the act of

GOOD LUCK TO EVERYBODY!
ingratitude.
Art. 771.
Inofficious donations :
- The value of the estate is the value

at the time of the donor’s death.
Page | 76

Property - Batacan

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Property - Batacan

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PROPERTY REVIEWER 2012-2013 - Atty.

Batacan’s Notes By: Cham Cañete

PROPERTY, classification of : (See Art. 414, NCC)

- Immovable or real property;

Why is there importance to classify?

a. Donations of real property (like land) must

b. The ownership over a real property may be

In Cornejo vs Gabriel, 41 Phil. 200, it was

conditions are met : a) the parties mutually agree to judgment,

In TSAI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 366 SCRA

May a building subjected to a chattel

In Manarang vs Ofilada, 99 Phil 108, it was

property: only made of stone. Railroad tracks or rails

Trees, plants and growing crops, while they

Even if land is rented,

But the moment they are detached or

Buildings are considered immovable 1. Even if the land is being leased by

Under this paragraph, for the PARAGRAPH 4:

In CBAA vs MERALCO, 119 Phil. 328, it

A fixed statue in the garden of the

In Mindanao Bus Co. vs City Assessor,

If the machines are still in the building,

2. The industry or works must be

In Mindanao Bus Co. vs City Assessor, 116

By express provision of Art. 585 of the

Slag dump is the dirt and soil taken from a

The properties referred to in this appropriation which are not included in

A servitude or easement is an 2. Real property which by any special

Usufruct of personal property or a

4. In general, all things which can be

b) If such change in location can

1. Those movables susceptible of

c) And if finally, the object is not

In Hongkong and Shanghai Bank vs

1.) Obligations and actions which have for

REMINDERS : PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON

2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial

Although the provisions of par. 2 seem

 A share of stock in a gold mining

1.) Those intended for public use, such

To constitute public use, the public in

 In Usero vs CA, 353 SCRA 449, the SC

CHARACTERISTICS: In Villarico vs Sarmiento, 110 SCRA 442, the

6. They cannot be burdened by

Property for PUBLIC USE,

It can be used by everybody, even by Answer :

“The river Viray and the estero Who shall declare?

Property of public dominion ceases to

If a land has been foreclosed by the

YES, but only during the period of

- Power of eminent domain.

The actual invasion of property may be:

3. Imposed by owner : a. Mere disturbance of possession

- The donor may prohibit the donee

b. Real dispossession – force, to situation, as against an external event which

Conflict of rights – The right of self-help under

PhP10,000,000.00 market value of land

The market value of the condemned PhP12,000,000.00

adjacent property increased

In Republic vs PLDT, 26 SCRA 620, the

Instances when the owner of land

 Possessor in good faith of the land.

If the land is more valuable than the