Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

OWNERSHIP reasonable needs of the owner (holder of the right)

and the promotion of the general welfare but


Rights as provided/enumerated under the New subject to the restrictions imposed by law and the
Civil Code: right of others.”
The Civil Code does not defi ne ownership. Other definitions:
Instead, the Code simply enumerates the rights
which are included therein, as follows: - independent and general right of a person to
control a thing, particularly in his possession,
(1) the right to enjoy the property (Art. 428, par. enjoyment, disposition, and recovery, subject to
1, NCC); no restrictions, except those imposed by law and
(2) the right to dispose the property (Art. 428, par. rights of others.
1, NCC); Personal right - right of obligation (power of one
(3) the right to recover the property from any to demand from another a fulfillment of a
holder or possessor (Art. 428, par. 2, NCC); prestation to give, to do, or not to do.

(4) the right to exclude any person from Real right- has been defi ned as the power
enjoyment and disposal of the property (Art. 429, belonging to a person over a specific thing without
NCC); a definite passive subject against whom such right
may be personally enforced.
(5) the right to enclose or fence the land or
tenement (Art. 430, NCC) -imposes obligtion on persons generally, i.e.,
either on all the world or on all the world except
(6) the right to demand indemnity for damages certain determinate persons
suffered due to lawful interference by a third
person to avert an imminent danger (Art. 432, *Ownership is a real right
NCC); Classification of Real rights:
(7) the right to just compensation in case of 1. Real right over one’s own property (jus in re
eminent domain (Art. 435, NCC); propria)
(8) the right to construct any works or make any 2. Real right over the property of another (jus in
plantations and excavations on the surface or re aliena)
subsurface of the land (Art. 437, NCC);
*These latter rights are lesser rights than the right
(9) the right to hidden treasure found in the of ownership yet they make inroads upon and
owner’s property (Art. 438, NCC); and curtail the rights of the owner.
(10) the right to accessions. (Art. 440, NCC) Examples of jus in re aliena are usufruct,
easement, possession and mortgage. In these
examples, the owner of the property has for the
Definition of JBL Reyes of Ownership: time being parted with some of his rights, thereby
restricting and abridging the right of ownership
-“an independent right of exclusive enjoyment and
control of the thing for the purpose of deriving
therefrom all advantages required by the
*the relationship that exists between ownership (b) Right to dispose (jus dispodendi)
and property is that the latter is the object of the
former. Jus disponendi or the power of the owner to
dispose of his property includes the power to
*in 427, “things” is considered as material things alienate, to encumber, to limit, to transform, to
since it’s distinguished from rights. However, in destroy and to merge.
428 or 414, it is considered as both material things
and rights(used in a juridical sense). * right to alienate is the right of the owner to
transmit either by onerous or gratuitous title his
right to another by any act inter vivos or mortis
causa
Rights of an Owner:
*The right to limit or encumber is the power of
-Art. 428 (enumeration of rights wrt ownership) the owner to deprive himself of several of the
1. Right to enjoy rights included in ownership and transfer them to
another
a) Right to possess (jus possidendi)
*right to transform, on the other hand, is the
b) Right to use (jus utendi) power to change the nature of the thing, or its
form or destination and the power to destroy is the
c) Right to fruits (jus fruendi) power to render useless or to abandon
a) Right to consume (jus abutendi) (c) Right to recover
3. Right to dispose/alienate(jus dispodendi) -Right to possession
a) Right to encumber/alienate Some authors refer to jus possidendi as the right to
possession(as included in ownership) and to jus
b) Right to destroy
possessionis(right independent from ownership)
3. Right to recover (jus vindicandi) as the right of possession. The latter concept of
possession (jus possessionis) is discussed
separately in Title V of Book II.
Right to enjoy *The owner is entitled to the exclusive possession
of his property.
-right of the owner to freely enjoy either the
property itself or the benefit is derived therefrom -Actions for Recovery of Possession
(right to use, to fruits, to possess, to accession, to
consumption) there are three kinds of actions available to
recover possession of real property (take note that
(a) Right to use and abuse (utendi and abutendi) it’s not personal property):
*jus utendi (to use) is different from jus abutendi (a) accion interdictal;
(consume). Ccdng to Sentor Tolentino, jus
abutendi properly meant the use that extinguishes, (b) accion publiciana; and
that consumes, by acts of the owner, things which
(c) accion reivindicatoria
are consumable.
Distinction of Reinvindicatoria from Publiciana:

*Accion Interdictal In accion publiciana, the basis of the recovery of


possession is the plaintiff’s real right of
Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes possession or jus possessionis — which is the
of action, namely, right to the possession of the real estate
(1) forcible entry (detentacion) and independent of ownership. In accion
reivindicatoria, however, the basis of the action
(2) unlawful detainer (desahuico). for recovery of possession is ownership itself (jus
possidendi)
Forcible entry- summary action to recover
material or physical possession of real property -What happens in an accion reivindicatoria is that
when the person who originally held it was the plaintiff has been deprived of the exercise of
deprived of possession by “force, intimidation, all the rights included in ownership and what he
threat, strategy, or stealth. seeks to recover by fi ling such an action is, in
reality, only the exercise of the rights included in
Unlawful detainer- fi led when possession by “a ownership.
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is Requisites (Art 433 and 434)
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by Person who purports to have a better right must
virtue of any contract, express or implied prove two (2) things:

*Accion Publiciana- ordinary civil proceeding to a) the identity of the land claimed; and
determine the better right of possession of realty b) his title thereto
independent of the title or ownership of the
property *If the plaintiff is unable to prove any of the
foregoing requisites, his action will fail even if the
Distinction of Interdictal to Publiciana: defendant cannot prove his title to the property.
Accion Interdictal is limited to the question of Article 429
possession de facto while the issue in the Accion
Publiciana is the determination of the better right -Doctrine of Self Help
of possession or possession de jure.
Law allows him to “use such force as may be
*Accion Reivindicatoria reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
A suit which has for its object the recovery of usurpation of his property”
possession over the real property as owner. It is an
action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a *As a necessary consequence of ownership, the
parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full owner has the right of exclusive enjoyment and
possession. control over his property, as well as to its
exclusive possession.
It is different from accion publiciana where
plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to * He may, therefore, exclude any person from its
possess without claim of title. enjoyment and disposal
Who may invoke: available not only to owners of *However, it is required that the right to enclose
the property but also to any of its “lawful or fence must be legitimately exercised and must
possessor not be attended with bad faith.

When to invoke: authorized only if the purpose is


to “repel” or “prevent” an actual or threatened Article 431-432
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the
said property Limitations on Ownership:

-only be exercised at the time of actual or 1. Inherent powers of the state


threatened dispossession, and not when possession a) Police Power
has already been lost
i. Accding to Freund, it is the power
*repel- referring to an “actual” unlawful physical of promoting the public welfare by
invasion or usurpation of the property restraining and regulating the use of
*prevent- referring to a “threatened” unlawful liberty and propetty
physical invasion or usurpation of the property. b) Eminent Domain
*IF already lost, the owner must resort to judicial i. inherent power of the State that
process for the recovery of property as required in enables it to forcibly acquire private lands
Article 536 of the Civil Code. intended for public use upon payment of just
* Defense of property is deemed included in compensation to the owner
selfdefense under the provisions of Article 11, c) Taxation
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
i. Taxation focuses on the power of
-however, it should be reasonable, as government to raise revenue in order to
supported by the doctrine of self-help. That’s why, support its existence and carry out its
in the case of People v Narvaez, he was only legitimate objectives
given a special mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense of property, since there is no
aggression of the takers. The means used was
disproportionate to the attack to said property, so Specific Limitations Imposed by Law
it cannot be considered under the justifying
1. Legal easements which can be enforced by law
circumstance of defense of property in the RPC.
and, therefore may be established even against the
will of the owner of the servient estate.

Article 430 2. During a period of acute public want or


emergency, thoughtless extravagance in expenses
-Right to Enclose or Fence for pleasure or display may be stopped by order of
the courts at the instance of any government or
Corollary to the right to exclude others from the private charitable institution.
enjoyment of his property, the owner of a parcel
of land or tenement has the right to enclose or
fence the same by whatever means
3. Lands acquired under free patent or homestead and the destruction of some houses will avert the
cannot be subject to encumbrance or alienation spread of the fi re, such destruction is justifi ed
within fi ve years from the issuance of the patent
*Requisites for state of necessity:
Inherent Limitations:
(1) there must be a situation of grave peril,
-Traditional view: it has been held that no an actual or imminent danger, either upon the
person can be held liable for damages occasioned person of the actor or a third person or their
to another by the exercise of a right property;

-Modern view: to grant indemnity for damages in (2) the interference is necessary to avert such
cases where there is an abuse of right, even when danger;
the act is not illicit
(3) the threatened damaged, compared to the
*Our Civil Code, noticeably, has departed from damage arising to the owner from the interference,
the classical and traditional theory and adopted the is much greater; and
view that a person will be protected only when he
acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, (4) the state of necessity must not be brought
when he acts with prudence and in good faith; but about by the intentional provocation of the party
not when he acts with negligence or abuse. (as invoking the same
supported by Article 19 and 431 of NCC) Requisites in the RPC wrt state of necessity:
*The absence of good faith is essential in First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
determining whether the owner can be held liable exists;
for any consequential damage arising from the
exercise of his right to use the property. Second. That the injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;

*Article 432: While an owner is entitled to Third. That there be no other practical and less
exclusive and undisturbed possession of his harmful means of preventing it
property and has the right to exclude other persons
from its enjoyment and disposal, such right is
unavailing if the interference by a third person is
*While interference to one’s property pursuant to
borne out of a state of necessity
a state of necessity is justified and does not
-State of necessity (Justifying constitute unlawful aggression, the persons benefi
Circumstance,Article 11 par.4 of RPC): ted by such interference are duty bound to
indemnify the owner for the damage suffered by
the interference by a third person with another’s the latter
property is justifi ed and cannot be prevented by
the owner if such interference is necessary to avert
an imminent danger and the threatened damage,
Limitations imposed by the owner himself:
compared to the damage arising to the owner from
the interference, is much greater. may impose restrictions or limitations on
ownership in two situations:
*example: when a fi re is threatening to
spread and destroy other houses and properties
(1) at the time that he transmits the property to not the area mentioned in its description, but the
another person; or boundaries therein laid down.

(2) at the time that he continues to be the owner Second Requisite: Proof of title
of the property
the lack or insufficiency of title on the part of the
(supported by the right to dispose said property by defendant does not entitle the plaintiff in an
owner thereof, or jus dispodendi) accion reivindicatoria to a favorable decision
unless he himself is able to support his claim of
Eg. Contract of commodatum ownership by evidence of title.
Art. 433-436 *tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of
Presumption of Ownership: Possession is viewed ownership. At most they just constitute mere
by the Civil Code as presumed ownership, as prima facie proof of ownership or possession of
provided under 433 of NCC. the said property.

Article 434 (Requisites of Accion Reivindicatoria)

* In an action to recover real property, the settled Art. 437-439


rule is that the plaintiff must rely on the strength Right to Sub-surface and Airspace
of his title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s
title (as provided above) -It is a well-known principle that the owner of
piece of land has rights not only to its surface but
Rationale behind this: This requirement is based also to everything underneath and the airspace
on two (2) reasons: first, it is possible that neither above it up to a reasonable height.
the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of
the property in dispute; and second, the burden of -The ownership of land extends to the surface as
proof lies on the party who substantially asserts well as to the subsoil underneath.
the affirmative of an issue for he who relies upon
the existence of a fact should be called upon to
prove that fact. Right to Hidden Treasure

Since the owner of the land is likewise the owner


First requisite: Proof of Identity of its sub-surface or sub-soil, any “hidden
treasure” on the sub-surface also belongs to him.
-the person who claims that he has a better right to
the property must fi rst fi x the identity of the land *The same rule applies if the “hidden treasure” is
he is claiming by describing the location, area and located on a building or other property
boundaries thereof *Requisites of Hidden Treasure
-boundaries may be natural (natural landmarks) or (1) deposit of money, jewelry or other precious
artificial (set up by Bureau of Lands) objects must be hidden or unknown
The rule is that when there is a confl ict between (2) lawful ownership of which must not appear.
the area and the boundaries of a land, the latter
prevails for what really defi nes a piece of land is
*The term “other precious objects” should be building permit. This permit allows the owner to
understood as being similar to money or jewelry. construct the proposed structure height approved
Hence, the concept does not include natural by ATO.
wealth, i.e., minerals and petroleum.
(3) For properties far from the airport, they are
-Under the Regalian doctrine, said minerals subject to the provisions of the National Building
and petroleum belongs to the state, even if found Code.
in a private land.
Article 440
-right to sub-suface/subsoil, subject to this
limitation Right to Accession is the right of an owner of a
thing to the products of said thing as well as to
* Under Art.438, If the fi nder is a third person, he whatever is inseparably attached thereto as an
is entitled to one-half of the treasure if he is not a accessory.
trespasser and the discovery of the treasure is only
by chance; otherwise, he shall not be entitled. -it is clear that “accession” presupposes a
previously existing ownership by the owner over
*The provisions of Article 438 of the New Civil the principal, such that it is considered merely as
Code on “hidden treasure” shall apply only if the an incident or an attribute of ownership.
discovery of the treasure is by chance. If the hunt
for treasure is deliberate, it is subject to the *It is not, therefore, a mode of acquiring
issuance of a permit pursuant to RA 8492. ownership but a right included in ownership.

Right to the Airspace Kinds of Accession:

While the airspace is a public highway, it is 1. Accesion discreta- right of the owner to
obvious that if the landowner is to have full anything which is produced by his property.
enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive a) Natural Fruits
control of the “immediate reaches of the
enveloping atmosphere” b) Industrial Fruits

-Limitations on the right to airspace: c) Civil Fruits

(1) He is bound by height restrictions annotated 2. Accesion continua- the right of the owner to
on the certifi cate of title if he acquired the anything which is incorporated or attached to his
property subject to such restrictions following the property, whether such attachment is through
principle that “contractual obligations between natural or artifi cial causes
parties have the force of law between them.”195
a) Industrial accession
(2) For properties situated near the airport, their
owners cannot complain of the reasonable i. Building
requirements of aerial navigation. They are
ii. Planting
required to secure a height clearance permit from
the Air Transportation Office (ATO), which iii. sowing
permit is a pre-requisite for the issuance of a
b) Natural accession To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is
essential that the tolerance must be present right
i. Alluvion from the start of the possession which is later
ii. Avulsion sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if the
possession was unlawful from the start, an action
iii. Change of course of river for unlawful detainer would be an improper
remedy.
iv. Formation of islands
The allegations in the complaint did not contain
any fact that would substantiate the claim of
Cases wrt to Ownership: Valdez that they permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the property by Fabella. The
Valdez v CA complaint contained only bare allegations that
Fabella without any color of title whatsoever
Facts:
occupied the land by building their house in the
Valdez was the owner of a parcel of land where said land thereby depriving Valdez the possession
Fabella consructed a house without any color of thereof. Nothing had been said on how Fabella's
title whatsoever. Valdez orally asked Fabella entry was effected or how and when dispossession
several times to vacate the property but the latter started. Admittedly, no express contract existed
stubbornly refused. between the parties.

The parties were not able to settle the dispute The evidence revealed that the possession of
amicably, which lead to the filing of a complaint Fabella was illegal from the start and not merely
for unlawful detainer by Valdez against Fabella. tolerated as alleged in the complaint, considering
that Fabella started to occupy the lot and then built
The MTC ruled in favor of Valdez, which was a house thereon without the permission and
affirmed by the RTC. The CA, on the other hand, consent of Valdez and before them, their mother.
reversed the decision. It held that Valdez failed Clearly, Fabella's entry into the land was without
to make a case for unlawful detainer because they the knowledge of the owners, consequently, it is
failed to show that they had given Fabella the categorized as possession by stealth which is
right to occupy the premises or that they had forcible entry. Tolerance must be present right
tolerated the possession of the same, which is a from the start of possession sought to be
requirement in unlawful detainer cases. recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one
of unlawful detainer not of forcible entry.
Issue:
There was nothing said on how Fabella's entry
Whether or not the allegations of the complaint was effected or how and when dispossession
clearly made out a case for unlawful detainer. started. There was also no express contract existed
between the parties. This failure of Valdez to
Held: allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive of
unlawful detainer was fatal. Since the complaint
No, the allegations of the complaint did not did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a
clearly make out a case for unlawful detainer. valid cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal
trial court had no jurisdiction over the case.
De Gallego v Land Authority HELD

FACTS NO. The conditions are found or provided in


Section 17 and 18 of Land Registration Order No.
The petitioner herein, a registered owner of a R-3 under the subject "Rules and Regulations
parcel of land situated in the province of Rizal, Governing the Acquisition and Disposition of
seeks the cancellation of certain conditions Landed Estate," approved November 15, 1951 by
involving the conveyance of said land in question the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
which was said to have been acquired by the Resources. Said conditions, having been imposed
Government for residential purposes with the pursuant to an Administrative Order which has the
principal objective of distributing the same to the force and effect of the law, are therefore binding
landless and thereby allow more people to have upon any person who acquires title to the same, it
their own homes. Petitioner insists that the appearing that said Conditions are annotated as
primary intention of the restriction against encumbrances on the back of the Certificate of
transfers or conveyances of the property except to Title of the land. Moreover, said Conditions are
the landless and except by hereditary succession not contrary to law, morals, customs, or public
in order to insure that more people shall own policy. In fact, these Conditions had been imposed
residential homes, has been lost by the in order to implement more effectively the main
transformation of the property from residential to purpose of the constitutional provision which is to
commercial since the landless who may want to break up landed estates into reasonably small
establish their residential homes can no longer portions and to discourage the concentration of
afford to pay the commercial price of this excessive landed wealth in an entity or a few
commercial property and thus said restriction individuals, (Republic vs. Baylosis, 96 Phil. 461)
should be eliminated to allow the aforementioned Incidentally, the New Constitution of 1973
property to contribute to the economic provided a modification of the original provision
development of the country. in the 1935 Constitution, thus: "The National
Petitioner, wife of former Ambassador Manuel Assembly may authorize, upon payment of just
Gallego, was not a landless individual, nor was compensation, the expropriation of private lands
she landless at the time when the said property to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at
was acquired by her, the fact being that the cost to deserving citizens. Therefore, it was only
restriction refers only to voluntary conveyances proper for the Court to hold the subject Conditions
and did not comprehend sales by public auction, to remain as they were.
as in the particular case, where the petitioner came
to own the property as the highest bidder in a
foreclosure sale by reason of a mortgage thereon.

ISSUE

Whether said conditions have lost any sound basis


in that while the subject parcel of land was
originally a residential lot, the classification of the
property had been changed to that of commercial.